diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50424-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50424-0.txt | 6285 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 6285 deletions
diff --git a/old/50424-0.txt b/old/50424-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index e9a5b56..0000000 --- a/old/50424-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,6285 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook, The Impending Crisis, by Basil A. Bouroff - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most -other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of -the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have -to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. - - - - -Title: The Impending Crisis - Conditions Resulting from the Concentration of Wealth in the United States - - -Author: Basil A. Bouroff - - - -Release Date: November 10, 2015 [eBook #50424] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - - -***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE IMPENDING CRISIS*** - - -E-text prepared by David Maranhao and the Online Distributed Proofreading -Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by -Internet Archive (https://archive.org) - - - -Note: Project Gutenberg also has an HTML version of this - file which includes the original illustrations. - See 50424-h.htm or 50424-h.zip: - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50424/50424-h/50424-h.htm) - or - (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/50424/50424-h.zip) - - - Images of the original pages are available through - Internet Archive. See - https://archive.org/details/cu31924002741357 - - -Transcriber’s note: - - Text enclosed by underscores is in italics (_italics_). - - Text enclosed by equal signs is in bold face (=bold=). - - Additional notes are at the end of the book. - - - - - -THE IMPENDING CRISIS - -Conditions Resulting from the Concentration of Wealth in the United States. - -by - -BASIL A. BOUROFF, - -Graduate Student of the University of Chicago. - - - - - - - -Publishers, -Midway Press Committee, -Chicago. -1900. - -Copyright, 1900, by -Midway Press Committee. - - - - - PREFACE. - - -This is not a novel, nor a work of fiction; it is based on the facts of -the Eleventh Census and other statistical reports, and on the most -reliable authorities on these subjects. This book represents the most -essential and fundamental features of the nation’s situation. It shows -the reasons why your cities rapidly become the property of a -comparatively very few persons; why the American farmers lose their -ground, and the urban population lose liberty; and why all become -absolutely dependent upon a few multi-millionaires. It exposes the -conditions in consequence of which the whole nation becomes a nation of -mere tenants of farms and homes, paying rents; and, while the wealth -increases, the greatest majority of the people come into desperate -struggle not for pleasure, but for simple existence. - -In order to impart as much knowledge in regard to the situation of the -nation as possible, it was found necessary to supply the readers with a -sufficient comparison of statistical facts, pointing to the differences -of averages made by different authorities on the subject. This -comparison has also been introduced for the purpose of indicating -certain truths of special value, and for finding the true bases of -reasonably dealing with the most vital problem of the national -existence. This problem involving conditions that cause the commonly -recognized social unrest of the present time is a problem which grows in -intensity. - -Recognizing the difficulty in solving the problem and the danger of the -situation, we should not wonder, if the very persons who are always -inclined to make discounts in established truths, will be profoundly -surprised to know from the final conclusions here presented, that the -time of discounts has passed away, and that it is now too late to ignore -the facts of so serious significance. - -If this work should come to be regarded as a general diagnosis of the -diseased situation, we may rest assured that there are many thousands of -people who will count it their sacred duty to find the proper remedy for -curing the disease of the national organism. For it will be seen that -the situation is rapidly growing worse every year with the increase of -population, and there must be an end to the disease. Surely, if the -increase of the national wealth is becoming less than the continual net -incomes of the private monopolies, trusts and combinations, it is not -difficult to recognize that the situation is already very bad. It is -therefore desirable that every one should carefully learn the situation. - - THE AUTHOR. - - Chicago, April 1, 1900. - - - - - CONTENTS. - - - CHAPTER I. - DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED STATES. - Page. - - Preliminary: opinions and views 1 - - Conclusions of Mr. G. K. Holmes, U. S. Census Expert, 5 - illustrated by diagrams and Table I - - Conclusions of Mr. Thos. G. Shearman 11 - - Diagrams, Table II, and explanation 12 - - Conclusions of Dr. C. B. Spahr 18 - - Diagrams, Table III, and explanation 20 - - CHAPTER II. - STATISTICS OF WEALTH OWNERS. - - Statistics of aggregate wealth 27 - - Economic classes of families analysed 28 - - Holders of wealth, tenants and mortgagors 32 - - Reciprocal comparison of contradictory classes 39 - - Comparison of the poor and the rich families 42 - - Right table resulting from comparisons 45 - - Comparison of families in tables of different authorities: 47 - averages of family wealth - - Illustrative chart showing worth of individuals 50 - - CHAPTER III. - THE PROPERTIED AND PROPERTYLESS PEOPLE. - - Fundamental difference in number of resources of the propertied 53 - and propertyless - - Sources of multiple incomes of the wealth owners 54 - - (Extent of mechanical forces applied to labor in favor of the 57 - wealthy) - - A propertyless man himself is a source of multiple expenses in 61 - favor of the propertied - - Primogeniture replaced by dividogenesure, the principle of 70 - dividogenesure defined and explained - - CHAPTER IV. - ABNORMITY OF THE SOCIAL SITUATION. - - Numbers of the people subject to dividogenesure 78 - - (Percentage of the homeless population in cities and towns and 79 - of the landless on farms) - - The propertyless a great nation 83 - - Bread-winners and others in gainful pursuits 89 - - Productivity of the American people superior 93 - - The people labor in favor of speculators 95 - - (Artificial world a witness for justice and rights) 98 - - Yearly net gains of the natural monopolies 101 - - Rates of injustice of dividogenesure expressed in daily incomes 103 - derived from millions of dependent individuals by the wealthy - few - - CHAPTER V. - THE MORTGAGOR FAMILIES. - - Loss of rights precedes loss of property 110 - - Statistics of farm and home families in debt 111 - - Percentages and numbers of families in debt in the United States 116 - after 1890: double table - - Increase of mortgages on acre-tracts and lots 119 - - Amounts of indebtedness and life of mortgage 121 - - Per capita debt and average rate percent on the debt 122 - - Annual interest charges on debts combined 126 - - Public and other debts in force after 1890 stated 126 - - Significance of mortgages: different views 128 - - Loss of property by foreclosure of mortgages 135 - - - CHAPTER VI. - CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH IN MONOPOLIES, ETC. - - Increase of the national wealth in seven years 139 - - Wages: the doctrine of; artificially kept up; the fall of 141 - - Net incomes of the natural and mortgagee monopolies from 1891 to 145 - 1897 inclusive - - Net incomes of monopolizers of rentable houses for the same 146 - period - - Net incomes of monopolies of rentable farm lands for the same 148 - period - - Net incomes of some trusts unascertained 151 - - Net incomes of the owners of offices, hotels and other rentable 152 - properties in the centers of cities - - Development of trusts in manufacture and mechanical industries; 154 - concentration of capital - - Net incomes of manufacture and mechanical trades 157 - - Net incomes of mining monopolies 161 - - Increase of the propertyless population 164 - - Grand total of the total-net-incomes of monopolies, trusts, and 169 - combinations in seven years - - Excess of the net incomes over the total increase of the 170 - national wealth in seven years explained - - National and local taxes for seven years paid 174 - - Increase of the propertyless and that of national wealth after 180 - 1897 up to 1900 stated - - Appendix 187 - - Index 191 - - - - - CHAPTER I. - - DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH IN THE UNITED - STATES. - - -When a heavy mass of clouds suddenly rises in a clear sky, every one -thinks that a terrific storm is to follow, displaying a great store of -pent up forces. And many people [SN: SIGNS OF THE TIMES.] never make a -single mistake in predicting from so ominous a summer sky what is going -to take place. Some similar forecasting is now going on within the -consciousness of the people. For nearly every one more or less clearly -feels that he is heavily pressed upon by some portent in the national -life. And every one whose mental horizon is clear enough and wide enough -sees, beyond the outward appearance, that something dangerous is stored -in the nation. It may be something so unusually great in its force, -something so explosive, something so combustible, that with the new -century it may terribly shake the world. - -It was quite recently when the “North American” of Philadelphia asked -the question, “What has the Nineteenth Century in store for -Philadelphia?” And by its own admission the replies received were -amazing. In summing them up, before spreading them at large before its -readers, it said: - -“Substantial business men, whose names are almost household words, -solemnly affirm that with opinions of the new century will come -revolution and bloodshed. Leading lawyers [SN: OPINIONS OF BUSINESS -MEN.] say the tendency will be toward socialism. Bankers join with labor -leaders in forecasting the triumph of the single-tax theory and the -consequent overthrow of existing social conditions. That such a -tremendous undercurrent of dissatisfaction and unrest exists in this -city will undoubtedly come as a shock to thousands of conservative -citizens. The opinions given are not those of labor agitators or -anarchists. They are the careful expressions of men of wealth and of -broad education. The revolutionary suggestions were not shouted upon the -street in time of riot and excitement, but were given deliberately while -the speakers sat in their well furnished offices, surrounded by comforts -and evidences of prosperity.[1]” So then the Nineteenth Century has -stored up in the social organism of the nation enough material to -produce revolution and bloodshed in the Twentieth Century. - -And Mr. Louis Post says in “The Public” of Chicago: “Our leisurely -friends of Philadelphia, who are to be envied, by the way, and not -sneered at, for being philosophical enough and sensible enough to keep -so much unwholesome hustle out of their lives—these slow and sober -people must have been ‘startled’ by the above ‘revelations’ of the -Philadelphia North American, that ancient landmark, now in its 128th -year.[2] It was undoubtedly an amazing surprise in view of its age that -the answer of its readers was, as you see, ‘revolution and bloodshed.’ - -If similar questions were presented to the thinking public of the -various cities of the United States, we might have thousands of like -opinions and all of them would be conditioned by sufficient reasons. - -One of the most prominent thinkers of the city of Chicago[3] also quite -recently said that “the Twentieth Century will bring to us the bloodiest -revolution that human [SN: OPINIONS OF LEARNED MEN.] history ever -witnessed.” And his assertion was not less amazing than was the -affirmation of the substantial business men of Philadelphia. If it were -honest and right to expose the names of men whose confidential -conversations led to the same or similar assertions, I alone could make -a long list of these names. - -They all admit that the nation, as an organism, has long been diseased; -its nerves have long been abnormally strained. But, like the friends of -Philadelphia, they speak about revolution and bloodshed which is but the -last and most convulsive stage of any nation’s serious disease. And it -is true that, when this stage is reached, it is impossible to avoid the -most intolerable operation. - -But the amazing feature of such opinions is that different men agree in -affirming that revolution and bloodshed is almost unavoidable; yet -different men, as I know, [SN: CAUSES OF UNREST.] assign different -causes for such an undesirable event.[4] Some say it must come because -the population increases and the unemployed laborers increase. Others -say that the trusts, combinations, and monopolies must ruin the nation. -Still others say that progress and poverty, being very rapid in their -diverse directions, must rapidly bring the wealthy and the poor into the -state of cut-throats against each other. And only very few men -understand that all these causes are but secondary, though working to -the same horrible end. While the real, effective cause for revolution -and bloodshed, with the nation, is the exceedingly unequal distribution -of wealth, and its rapid concentration in a very few hands. - -It is this situation that our democratic people will not be able to -endure, because they are born [SN: PEOPLE THINK THEY ARE BORN FREE.] -free, whereas the storing up of wealth in a few hands makes them all -economic slaves; deprives them of the privileges they enjoyed; makes -them absolutely dependent upon the mercies of the rich, which, if shown -to them, they may live; if withheld from them, they must starve to -death. - -Let us see, then, what it is that the Nineteenth Century has stored up, -which is to result in such a terrific convulsion in the Twentieth -Century. - -The following diagrams present the Logical Premises from which the -“revolution and bloodshed,” as a conclusion, must inevitably follow, -provided their action is not checked. - - Distribution of Wealth in the United States.[5] - - Population: 62,622,250. Wealth: $65,037,091,197. - - Millionaires .03 } Millionaires 20 } - Rich 8.97 } .09 Rich 51 } .71 - - Middle 28 } Middle 20 } - Lower 11 } .91 Lower 04 } .29 - Poor 52 } Poor 05 } - -“These diagrams showing by percentages the population and wealth -distribution in the United States, according to tables compiled by -George K. Holmes, U. S. Census Expert on Mortgage Statistics, are from -the Encyclopedia of Social Reform.” - -The contents of the above diagrams show on the bases of statistics that -in 1890 three hundredths of one per cent of the population, [SN: -PERCENTAGES OF WEALTH AND PEOPLE.] which are the millionaires, held 20 -per cent of the nation’s wealth. Eight per cent and ninety-seven -hundredths of one per cent of the population, which are the rich, held -51 per cent of the wealth. The middle class, consisting of 28 per cent -of the population, held 20 per cent of the wealth. The lower class, -consisting of 11 per cent of the population, held 4 per cent of the -wealth. And the poor class, consisting of 52 per cent of the population, -held but 5 per cent of the national wealth,[6] as this table shows: - - Table I. - - +-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+ - | | | | | Distribution | - |Percentages| Population |Percentages| Aggregates of | of wealth | - |of People. | in Groups. |of Wealth. | Wealth in | per head | - | | | | Dollars. | in Dollars. | - +-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+ - | 00.03 | 18,786 | 20 | 13,007,418,274 | 691,867 | - | 08.97 | 5,617,172 | 51 | 33,168,916,461 | 59,041 | - | 28.00 | 17,534,216 | 20 | 13,007,418,253 | 741 | - | 11.00 | 6,888,432 | 4 | 2,601,483,644 | 377 | - | 52.00 | 32,563,644 | 5 | 3,251,854,565 | 99 | - +-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+ - | 100.00 | 62,622,250 | 100 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 | - +-----------+------------+-----------+----------------+--------------+ - -This illustrative table represents the exact value of the diagrams on p. -5. And nothing is more interesting in this table than the sad -differences in the worth of the groups, and especially when their -respective wealth is divided per every head. The right-hand column shows -that there are 18,786 persons whose aggregate wealth, if divided equally -among them, would give $691,867 to each man, woman, and child. And there -are 32,563,644 persons[7] in the last group, whose wealth, if equally -divided among them, can give but $99 to every person. These two groups -present the greatest possible extremes of group-poverty and -group-opulence. - -The other three groups, as their averages clearly show, are intermediary -between the two extremes. [SN: PER CAPITA WEALTH.] And if all the wealth -of the nation were equally divided among its population, we could have -$1,036 to every man, woman, and child. This per capita wealth indicates -that the nation is very rich on the whole, but its riches, as you see, -belong to a very few persons. - -What then is the difference between a rich man and a poor man, between a -rich woman and a poor woman? - -If the 32,563,644 men, women and children had $100 per capita wealth, -then one rich man of the first group of the above table, would be worth -more [SN: WORTH OF MEN.] than 6,918 men of the last group of the same -table. A rich man’s horse often worth more than 10, 20, 30, or even -more, poor men taken together. A rich woman’s finger alone worth more -than 10 or 20 poor women taken together, because that finger is often -embellished with the diamond rings that cost thousands of dollars. A -complete ladies’ dress or a costume often amounts to more than $5,000, -and hence it is worth more than 40 or 50 women taken together with their -dresses. Such are the differences between the rich and the poor people -when they are valued by the dollar. - -But the dollar differences cause a great many other differences between -the rich and the poor. The poor man is not only poor in wealth, but he -is poorer still in social [SN: POOR IN SOCIAL RIGHTS.] rights and -privileges. And there is no possibility for the poor to rise up out of -his poverty. For he has no resources of wealth which the rich people -have; and he has no property of his own; for if he is worth but $99, -which is really his house-scarb,[8] he has no productive property at -all; he is then absolutely dependent upon the mercy of the wealthy, -without which he cannot exist even for six months. He cannot acquire -higher education and training, because he is encompassed with poverty -which furnishes no means for the education that helps men to acquire -wealth. Hence, the lack of education keeps the poor in poverty; and this -poverty prevents him from getting the helpful education. So that, -poverty and ignorance become the bitter enemies of the above millions of -individuals in the modern world of progress. Yet the modern poor have a -far more potent enemy than poverty and ignorance combined, which we -shall see later on. - -Meanwhile, we will say here, that the rich are the masters over the poor -in the sphere of law, in the sphere of politics, in the club, in the -theater, in the church, at home [SN: DOMINANCY OF THE RICH.] and -abroad—everywhere; as if all power were given unto them under the -heavens over the poor. And how many church-ministers would not give them -the same power and the best places in the hereafter? For the very -character of sermons in our days depends upon the pleasures of the rich -in many churches, because the ministers depend upon the wealthy few more -than they depend on the millions of the poor. While all these poor are -the rich men’s economic slaves, spending half of their labor energy in -favor of the wealthy. That is what the Nineteenth Century has provided -for the nation. - -But the above statistical conclusions were by many regarded as “roseate” -and “extremely moderate conclusions.” And it was in consequence of this -that Dr. Spahr [SN: CONCLUSIONS ARE MODERATE.] was obliged to reiterate -the expression: “Since the completion of this study, a volume has -appeared that must set at rest all question as to the extreme moderation -of the estimates reached.”[9] For it was clear that every new -investigation of the distribution of wealth confirmed the fact of a more -and more rapid concentration of the national wealth in fewer hands than -before. And it is the question of poverty, that spreads like contagion, -that the American people have now to deal with, in view of a phenomenal -increase of the national wealth which concentrates in the few hands. And -it is this question that cannot be set at rest while millions grow -poorer and poorer and the propertyless increase in numbers, as we shall -soon see. - -The people cannot set this question at rest until they know the truth of -the different statistical tables, indicating the nation’s situation and -destiny. And we cannot rest until we make a series of propositions for -the purpose of producing more equal distribution of wealth in this -country. And even then we cannot rest, until our propositions be applied -to the irrational life of the nation, with the purpose of working out -justice for the people. When we see all this in their actual life, then -we shall rest, as the people shall be regaining their freedom, their -property, their resources of income, their rights to work and to enjoy -the fruits of their toil. The intelligent people cannot and must not -rest before they reach a resting place. They cannot always be deceived -by the shallow and selfish arguments which prove that the national -wealth increases enormously,—for it so increases only with the few and -rapidly decreases with the entire people. But the time will come when -the tens of millions will no longer vote for men who deprive them of all -rights, self-respect and liberty. - -As we shall see later on, the 32,563,644 persons [SN: UTENSILS AS -WEALTH.] of the last group of the table I possessed no real wealth at -all even at the census in 1890. For though the diagrams represent them -as having had $99 worth of wealth to every head, yet this wealth was -personal and not productive. - - - STATISTICAL CONCLUSIONS OF MR. SHEARMAN. - -“An estimate of the distribution of wealth in the United States was made -by Mr. Thomas G. Shearman [SN: RESEARCHES OF MR. SHEARMAN.] in the -‘Forum’ for 1889, and for January, 1891. It was based on careful -estimates of the wealth of the very wealthy, a list of which he gave, -and estimates of the division of the remaining wealth of the country -between the middle class and the poor based on assessors’ returns.”[10] - -“Mr. Shearman came to the conclusion that 1.4 per cent of the population -own 70 per cent of the wealth; 9.2 per cent of the population own 12 per -cent of the wealth; and 89.4 per cent of the population own only 18 per -cent of the wealth.”[11] - -In these conclusions, we have a still greater twist of facts by wrong -handling. Now, to illustrate these conclusions as they stand by another -set of diagrams, they will be as follows: - - Population: 62,622,250. Wealth: $65,037,091,197. - - The wealthy 1.4 The wealth - of the - wealthy .70 - - Independent 9.2 Independent .12 - - The poor and Dependent - dependent 89.4 and the poor .18 - - Conclusions of Unrestrained Averages of 1890. - -These diagrams indicate by percentages the exact conclusions of Mr. -Shearman in respect to the population and the wealth distribution in -this country. The author [SN: LOOSE AVERAGES.] of these conclusions -obviously put too much salt of his own into his averages; for, by -parceling out the wealth of a number of the well-to-do and rich people, -he succeeded in persuading his readers, that, in America, the body of -tens of millions of propertyless people, the paupers and the tramps, do -not possess, on an average, less than $200 worth of wealth for each -person, including women and children of all ages. Whereas, in reality, -the wealth from which he made the fictitious averages, belongs to a very -few persons of the nation. While an astonishing majority of the people, -as we shall see, have no rights whatever to this wealth. - -Let us again illustrate the conclusions in a tabular way for the sake of -definiteness: - - Table II.[12] - - +------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+ - | Percent. | Population | Percent. | Aggregates of | Wealth per | - | of | in economic | of | wealth per group | head | - | population.| groups. | wealth. | in dollars. | in dollars.| - +------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+ - | 1.4 | 876,710 | 70 | 45,525,973,867 | 51,928 | - | 9.2 | 5,761,242 | 12 | 7,804,450,932 | 1,354 | - | 89.4 | 55,984,298 | 18 | 11,706,676,398 | 209 | - +------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+ - | 100.00 | 62,622,250 | 100 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 | - +------------+-------------+----------+------------------+------------+ - -The first glance at this table and a glance at the table on page 6 show -the reader that Mr. Shearman divided the population into three groups; -and Mr. Holmes divided it [SN: LINES OF DIVISION OF THE PEOPLE.] into -five groups. The bases of division are economic in both tables; but the -lines of division are very different with the one statistical authority -and the other. If we examine these lines, we shall find that Mr. Holmes’ -fifth group consists of over 32½ million persons who, taken together, -had been worth a little over 3 billion dollars; so that, each person of -the group could have about $99 worth of wealth, as the average of table -I shows. The next higher group of the same author, which comprises -nearly 7 million persons, had, on an average, more wealth to each -person, than each person could have in the fifth group, hence the per -capita wealth of the fourth group of people was $377. While the group -still higher up in wealth, which consists of little over 17½ million -persons, and which had over 13 billion dollars’ worth of wealth, could -have $741 to every head, that is, if this wealth were equally divided -among them. The second group of Mr. Holmes’ division consists of over 5½ -million persons, among whom the poorest ones had, probably not less than -$5,000 worth of wealth, as their average worth of over $59,000 shows. -Such a division of the population into five economic groups, if every -family is rightly and honestly valued, presents an immense amount of -truth to the public judgment.[13] - -But what Mr. Shearman really did with his estimates and conclusions is -this: Seeing that the extent of poverty is appalling, he made the -division line in the group of [SN: SWEEPING AVERAGE.] well-to-do people; -he thus made the group of the very poor extend so far as to comprise -nearly 56 million persons; and then, by dividing the wealth of the -well-to-do persons among all these millions, he obtained an average of -$209 worth of wealth to every pauper, to every tramp, to every man, -woman and child,—who have had no wealth, and have had no rights whatever -to the wealth they are nominally represented as entitled to. - -Consequently, his distribution of wealth among the third group of people -is merely on paper, is nominal, is showy, and it does not correspond to -reality with reference [SN: ONLY NOMINAL DISTRIBUTION.] to more than 35 -million persons as represented in Mr. Holmes’ distribution of this -wealth. Mr. Shearman might as well follow the example of Mr. Carroll D. -Wright[14] and, by a single effort in calculation, divide among all -individuals the 70 per cent of wealth that belongs to his 1.4 per cent -of the people. In doing that, he might apportion more than $1,000 worth -of it to [SN: JESUITS AND GALILEO.] every penniless individual, and then -might say, Why, we are all rich, we are the most civilized and righteous -people in the world! But such an effort, and such an assertion, however, -would not at all alter the real situation; no more than Galileo, when in -view of the danger of death, signing the Jesuit verdict in favor of the -non-revolution of our planet round the sun, could thereby stop the -actual revolution of the earth; for the earth’s progressive motion went -on, in spite of the ardent desire and policy of the Jesuits to make it -stand still by a verdict. Nothing but an indescribable shock of the -earth against another heavenly body can change its principles of motion. - -The same is true of the nation. Once the principle of concentration of -wealth is left unimpeded in its action, it must work out its end; [SN: -DANGER.] it must of living necessity produce revolution and bloodshed. -And neither the extremely moderate statisticians, nor the false -averages, of even of the meanest falsehood, can prevent its action -toward such a horrible result. “You remember the French revolution?” -[SN: FRENCH REVOLUTION, ROME.] asked Hon. Jno. S. Crosby of his audience -in Binghamton,[15] N. Y., and then he said: “In France all the lands had -come into the hands of a few people, the king and nobles, and a majority -of the people were depending on them for a living. The time came when -these down-trodden people rose up and Paris streets ran with blood. Your -country will have the same experience if you keep on fooling with the -laws of God. - -“Rome was once the mistress of the whole world. She lorded it over the -other countries. But she fell, and Pliny, her historian, lays the cause -of her downfall to land monopoly.”[16] And so it was with ancient Egypt; -so it was with ancient Assyria, and so it was with the Byzantine Empire, -those great and powerful nations that perished for similar misconduct in -relation to themselves. - -Exactly so, this young nation also irrationally strides in the way of -Rome. The concentration of her wealth in a few hands is now more rapid -than it was before the last [SN: RUSH OF THE NATION.] census. That -census brought about astonishing conclusions, yet the nation rushes as -fast as she can to her ruin. And who can locate the weight of -responsibility for her end? Every one seems to think about his selfish -interests. Consequently, nothing has been done in the past to evade the -ruin; nothing but the greatest national harm is being done in the -present; and no fundamental [SN: LOGICAL PREMISES FOR THE YEAR OF....] -measure, no rational remedy, no serious means appear for delaying it in -the future. While the Logical Premises[17] for revolution and bloodshed -have been established in the nation’s life, and their forces have been -working to that inexorable end. - -Now we are ready to present another conclusion that the statisticians of -1890 reached. It deals with the numbers of families, leaving out the -individual inhabitants. - -We have been assured that the U. S. nation in 1890 consisted of -12,690,152 families, and that each family, on an average, consisted of -little less than 5 members, namely: 4.93 members.[18] The distribution -of the national wealth among families, therefore, was expressed as -follows: - -“_Less than half the families in America are propertyless; nevertheless, -seven-eighths of the families [SN: HALF THE NATION.] hold but one-eighth -of the national wealth_,” and vice versa. “_While one per cent of the -families hold more_ (wealth) _than the remaining ninety-nine_,” says Dr. -C. B. Spahr.[19] - -At last we have struck in these conclusions a piece of more serious -reality. “Less than half the families in the United States are -propertyless.” Here you are! “Less than half.” [SN: CONCLUSIONS OF -REALITY.] Yet even here, we are far from the fulness of truth. It seems -as if the statisticians themselves were afraid to reveal the full truth -to the people. And there are many intelligent persons who believe that -the pure and complete truth should be known only to God Omniscient, -while His creatures must be content to know but particles of truth mixed -with falsehood. - -As long, however, as the U. S. nation remains a democratic nation, and -as long as responsibility for its prosperity or distress and disaster -[SN: RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PEOPLE.] rests upon a majority of its people, -this people ought to know not particles, but the whole truth of the -conditions of their existence. Otherwise the least possible minority of -the sharks in human form or the wolves in sheep’s skin, may devour or -ruin the greatest bulk of the people. - -Let us then illustrate here one of the above conclusions, while leaving -the two others for later discussion. - -“Seven-eighths of the families hold but one-eighth of the national -wealth,” and vice versa, as the diagrams on the following page indicate, -where the 12,690,152 families represent 62,622,250 individuals as in the -preceding diagrams. - - Population: 12,690,152.[20] Wealth: $65,037,091,197. - - Poor Poor - families } 7/8 families } 1/8 - - Rich Rich - families } 1/8 families } 7/8 - -These diagrams represent exactly the truth of the conclusion: -“Seven-eighths of the families of this nation held but one-eighth of the -national wealth;[20] or seven-eighths of the nation’s wealth was held by -but one-eighth of the families. - -The table on the next page illustrates some of the details of the above -conclusion. - -The upper division of that table presents the distribution of wealth -among the families, where the two “per family” averages indicate [SN: -FAMILIES.] a difference in the worth of more than 11-million families -that held $732 each, and the worth of little over 1½-million families -that held $35,875 each. So that, each family of the latter group was -worth as much as 49 families of the former. While the general average of -$5,125 shows that, if the national wealth had been equally distributed -among all families, every one of them would have had this average amount -as its own. - - Table III. - - +-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+ - |Proportions| Numbers of ||Proportions| Aggregate wealth| Average | - | of | families in || of | per group, | wealth per | - | | groups. || | in dollars. | family. | - +-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+ - | 7/8 | 11,103,883 || 1/8 | 8,129,636,399 | $ 732 | - | 1/8 | 1,586,269 || 7/8 | 56,907,454,798 | 35,875 | - +-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+ - | 8/8 | 12,690,152 || 8/8 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125 | - +===========+=============++===========+=================+============+ - | | Number of || | Wealth—the same | Wealth | - | | individuals.|| | in dollars. | per head. | - +-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+ - | 7/8 | 54,794,468 || 1/8 | 8,129,636,399 | $ 148 | - | 1/8 | 7,827,782 || 7/8 | 56,907,454,798 | 7,269 | - +-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+ - | 8/8 | 62,622,250 || 8/8 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 | - +-----------+-------------++-----------+-----------------+------------+ - -The lower division of the table represents the same amounts of national -wealth, the same population, only individually considered; and both the -wealth and the population [SN: INDIVIDUALS.] were divided into eight -parts each, in order to carry out the proportions between numbers of the -individuals and the wealth they possessed. The result in this division -is that 7,827,782 individuals have had an average wealth of $7,269 each -man, woman and child, and 54,794,468 individuals had but $148 worth of -wealth to every head.[21] The difference between the worth of one person -of the one group, and one person of the other group, is $7,121 in favor -of the rich person. And that, again, one person of the wealthy class, on -an average, is worth more than 49 persons of the poor class. - -But the most astounding fact is that we have over 54½-million -inhabitants of this poverty-stricken class, and we have only a [SN: -NUMBERS NEAREST TO THE TRUE ONES.] little more than 7½-million -inhabitants of the wealth-swollen class. So that, these 54½-million -individuals appear to be totally dependent upon the mercies and motions -of 7½-million persons who are steadily growing richer and decreasing in -numbers, while the poor are growing poorer and rapidly increasing in -numbers. For such has been the growth of economic slavery that the above -millions have to combat with. - -Besides all this, we have seen the statistical conclusion that, “Less -than half the families in America are propertyless,” which certainly -[SN: THE PROPERTYLESS FAMILIES APPEAR LITTLE BETTER OFF.] means, that -these propertyless families must be found included among the 54-millions -of the poor. So that the present average wealth of these millions, which -is $148 per every head, was made of the wealth of the upper classes, -which average was not at all possessed by the poor. The economic -conditions of the poor must be still worse than Table III represents -them. But we shall find this out in the next chapter; while the -conclusion that, “1 per cent of the families hold more wealth than the -remaining 99 per cent of them,” nearly corresponds with the conclusion -of Mr. Shearman, as represented on pp. 12 and 13. - - - - - CHAPTER II. - - STATISTICS OF WEALTH OWNERS. - - -In the preceding chapter, we have dealt with ready-made conclusions of -different statistical authorities, which, by the way of [SN: RESULTS OF -THE FIRST CHAPTER.] analysis, revealed to us, that 32,563,644 -persons[22] of the population had on an average $99 worth of wealth, -according to Mr. G. Holmes; that 55,984,298 persons[23] had on an -average $209 worth of wealth, according to Mr. Thos. Shearman; and that -54,794,468 persons[24] out of 62,622,250 inhabitants, with -$65,037,091,197 worth of wealth, had on an average $148 worth of wealth -apiece, according to Dr. Spahr. - -These differences in conclusions indicate that the national wealth is -very strongly concentrated with a few persons, and that in order [SN: -WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF FEW.] to obtain the nominal average of $148 worth -of wealth to every poor person, one has to move the line of division of -wealth so far up toward the wealthy few as to include nearly all the -people among the masses of the poor. While, without this unfair moving -of the line, more than 30-millions of the population would have no real -wealth at all. For $56,907,454,798 worth of the wealth actually belongs -to one-eighth of the population, or to 7,827,782 individuals, including -men, women and children. And among these, we are told, “1 per cent of -the population held more wealth than the remaining 99 per cent held -together.”[25] So that the day is not far off when these 99 per cent of -the people shall absolutely depend upon the 1 per cent of the rich and -far reaching. - -Regarded as the Logical Premises of the life of the nation, this -extremely unequal distribution of wealth cannot be other than extremely -dangerous for the existence [SN: THE SITUATION IS DANGEROUS FOR THE -FUTURE.] of the nation as it is, for the logic is inexorable: Whatever -you have sown, that shall you also reap, is a saying that cannot be -mistaken either by the wealthy or the poor. The situation indicates that -this apparently polished nation presents only an enormous working -mechanism, made not of steel and iron, but a mechanism of wood, which -may be broken into pieces at any future time, in consequence of any -insignificant occasion, if it continues to work heedlessly on with a -wrong speed against itself. A rational regulation of its speed is -absolutely necessary, in order to save it from an otherwise unavoidable -destruction. A civilized nation cannot live long without a highly -intelligent regulation of all its working principles. For, to live a -national life is not to play a childish game. - -Yes, we have examined the above conclusions, but we have not realized -the entire truth of the situation. For we were told that, [SN: THE -SITUATION IS WORSE THAN INDICATED.] “Less than half the families in -America are propertyless,”[26] which clearly means that the distribution -of wealth among the people is much worse than we have a right to suppose -upon the basis of the stated conclusions of 1890. As these conclusions -differ from each other in contents, we have the moral right to -re-examine the varying statistical tables that testify of the same -distribution of wealth. And we have a right to find the naked truth in -the mass of materials we have, and to look it straight in the face, if -we can. - -But before proceeding to compare the main tables of statistics, it will -be well to show what the wealth of the nation in 1890 consisted of. -Accordingly, the table on the next page represents eight items into -which the wealth was classified. And it represents the summary of all -kinds of wealth that was found existing in the United States in the year -of the 11th census. While the next table, following it, represents the -history of the accumulation of wealth, by application of the labor -energy of the people upon various resources of land. - - - STATISTICS OF WEALTH. - -“The census valuation of real and personal property in the United States -(Alaska excluded) in 1890[27] was prepared by J. K. Upton,” as follows: - - Table of Wealth. - - -------------------------------------+---+----------------- - Real estate with improvements | | - thereon | 1 | $39,544,544,333 - | | - Live stock of farms, farm implements | | - and machinery | 2 | 2,703,015,040 - | | - Mines and quarries, including | | - product on hand | 3 | 1,291,291,579 - | | - Gold and silver coin and bullion | 4 | 1,158,774,948 - | | - Machinery of mills and product | | - on hand, raw and manufactured | 5 | 3,058,593,441 - | | - Railroads and equipments, including | | - street railroads | 6 | 8,685,407,323 - | | - Telegraphs, telephones, shipping | | - and canals | 7 | 701,755,712 - | | - Miscellaneous | 8 | 7,893,708,821 - -------------------------------------+---+----------------- - Total (United States) | $65,037,091,197 - -----------------------------------------+----------------- - - Accumulation of Wealth. - - +--------+-----------------------+--------------------+ - | Years. | Aggregates of wealth. | Per capita wealth. | - +--------+-----------------------+--------------------+ - | 1850 | $ 7,135,780,228 | $ 308 | - | 1860 | 16,159,616,068 | 514 | - | 1870 | 30,068,518,507 | 780 | - | 1880 | 43,642,000,000 | 870 | - | 1890 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036[28] | - +--------+-----------------------+--------------------+ - -The last historic table shows that the accumulation of wealth by the -nation has been phenomenal, and equal to the expense of labor [SN: -INCREASE OF WEALTH PHENOMENAL.] energy which was embodied by the people -into that wealth. And if the amount of wealth existing in 1890 had been -equally distributed among the people, every man, woman and child, would -have had more than $1,000 of it, or exactly $1,036 as the nominal per -capita distribution of it by Mr. Carroll D. Wright indicates. - -Let us, however, see the actual distribution of wealth, as it was in -1890: - - The United States, 1890[29]—1st Table. - - ---------------------+------------+------------------+------------ - ESTATES.[30] | Number | Aggregates of | Average - | (of | wealth per class | wealth per - | families). | in dollars. | family. - ---------------------+------------+------------------+------------ - The wealthy classes, | | | - $50,000 and over | 125,000 | 33,000,000,000 | 264,000 - | | | - The well-to-do | | | - classes, $50,000 | | | - to $5,000 | 1,375,000 | 23,000,000,000 | 16,000 - | | | - The middle classes, | | | - $5,000 to $500 | 5,500,000 | 8,200,000,000 | 1,500 - | | | - The poorer classes, | | | - under $500 | 5,500,000 | 800,000,000 | 150 - ---------------------+------------+------------------+------------ - Totals | 12,500,000 | 65,000,000,000 | 5,200 - ---------------------+------------+------------------+------------ - -It is difficult to understand why this important table has been -published in round numbers almost throughout. It is, however, not at all -difficult to see that it represents an extremely unequal distribution of -the wealth among the American people. - -And in order to restore the figures of this table so as to bring the -whole into accord with the last census, it is necessary to regard the -[SN: EXTREMES TO BE EQUALIZED.] size of each family at 4.93 members, as -the census represents them. In doing this, it is also necessary to -restore the round numbers, supplying all omissions in the aggregate -totals and in the wealth of the groups. Before giving a further -explanation, then, the restored table will appear as follows: - - 1st Restored Table. - - ---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------ - Economic classes of | Number | Aggregates of | Average - families. | of families. | wealth per class | wealth per - | | in dollars. | family. - ---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------ - The wealthy classes, | | | - $50,000 and over | 126,750 | 33,000,000,000 | 260,355 - | | | - The well-to-do | | | - classes, $50,000 | | | - to $5,000 | 1,394,250 | 22,676,863,197 | 16,264 - | | | - The middle classes, | | | - $5,000 to $500 | 5,584,576 | 8,522,541,600 | 1,526 - | | | - The poorer classes, | | | - under $500 | 5,584,576 | 837,686,400 | 150 - ---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------ - Totals | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125 - ---------------------+--------------+------------------+------------ - -Now, this restoring has been made up by borrowing $323,136,803 from the -wealth found in the 2d group; and again by adding $37,091,197 worth of -wealth which was omitted in the round numbers of the total aggregate of -wealth. These two amounts, consisting of $360,228,000 in the restored -table, have on the basis of the original averages been distributed among -the families of the 3d and the 4th groups. So that the 3d group of -families appears to be richer by $322,541,600; while the 4th group by -$37,686,400; and the 2d group appears to be poorer by $323,136,803 worth -of wealth. Hence, we have made the 1st R. table represent the -distribution of wealth by $360,228,000 more equal than the author of the -original table has actually found it to exist.[31] - -On the other hand, in restoring the numbers of family-members to the -census average of 4.93, we [SN: FAMILIES MADE EQUAL TO CENSUS.] add -about 7 members to every 100 families of five members each, as Dr. Spahr -represents them. This addition of 190,152 families to the whole renders -the average-family and the total number of families in the United States -exactly as they were given by the census in 1890. - -But in restoring this table to the census status, we do not for a moment -disregard its original value, as the most reliable work, nor do we think -of making an argument, or anything of the kind, in favor of anybody, -upon the ground of the surface restoration. No, there is a deeper sense -and a deeper ground in the restored and the next table, and we have an -abundance of other material for our purpose of showing the truth. -Meanwhile, this restoring of the 1st table that had omissions, has been -necessary for many reasons, and because it seemed to many thinkers as -probably an extreme representation, though it was true to the facts. For -these thinkers desired that the distribution of wealth should be more -equal than it has really been. - -And, further, holding a conservative position, it was necessary too to -avoid a serious disturbance in the original averages of the family -wealth found by Dr. Spahr, thus making the table comparable with another -table, which is the most important one, because it indicates the tenants -of farms and homes and the owners of mortgaged farms and homes. - -Furthermore, the restored table may serve as a means of comparison of -its classes of different worth with the corresponding classes in the -following table, based upon the eleventh census facts. Accordingly, the -next table represents the families of different worth which were -classified upon the same economic bases as in the table of Dr. Spahr. - - U.S. 2d Table, 1890.[32] - - ------------------------+----------+------------------ - Holders of Wealth. | Number. | Value in Dollars. - ------------------------+----------+------------------ - Tenants of farms and | | - homes | 7,871,099| 2,837,049,500 - Owners of mortgaged | | - farms and homes worth | | - less than $5,000 | 1,483,356| 2,614,955,764 - Owners of free farms and| | - Homes worth less than | | - $5,000 | 3,078,077| 10,946,616,952 - Owners of farms and | | - homes worth $5,000 | | - and over | 1,257,620| 48,600,000,000 - ------------------------+----------+------------------ - Totals[33] |13,690,152| 64,998,622,216 - ------------------------+----------+------------------ - -We have read on pp. 11 and 12 that, when Mr. Shearman made his list of -statistics of wealth distribution, “that his table was based on careful -estimates of the wealth of [SN: METHODS OF RESEARCH.] the very wealthy; -while the wealth of the poorer classes was estimated on the bases of -assessors’ returns;” just as the table of Dr. Spahr, p. 28, which -represents the very wealthy families in the 1st group, the well-to-do in -the 2d, and the poor families in the 3d and 4th groups. This arrangement -and representation of the families evidently agrees with that of Mr. -Shearman, and proves the fact that both distinguished authorities used -the same or similar methods in studying the actual distribution of -wealth, and in representing their conclusions to those that were anxious -to know of the distribution. - -But the 2d statistical table, on the preceding page, was based upon the -carefully averaged conclusions of Mr. G. K. Holmes, the U. S. Census -Expert on Mortgage Statistics in 1890. - -“Mr. Holmes,” as the author of the 2d table says, “follows a method -contrary to that of Mr. Shearman, and by estimating the wealth of the -poor, arrives at the wealth of the rich. He finds that .03 per cent of -the people own 20 per cent of the wealth; 8.97 per cent of the people -own 51 per cent of the wealth, and 91 per cent of the people own only 29 -per cent of the wealth.[32] - -“The fact that Mr. Holmes is not a partisan either of conservatism or -radicalism, gives to his estimates an unwonted value. As published in -the Political Science Quarterly,” says the Editor of the Encyclopedia of -Social Reform, “and in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, -these estimates have resulted in these four groups of families seen in -the 2d table, p. 32.” - -We agree with Rev. W. Bliss and others in regarding the estimates of Mr. -Holmes as exceedingly valuable, because without them we could neither -have known the [SN: IMPORTANCE OF HOLMES’ WORK.] number of _the tenant -families_, nor the number of _the mortgagor families_, in the United -States. And hence, we could not have known the seriousness of the -situation in the economic conditions of the nation. While having the -table based upon his estimates, the reader may, at the very slight -examination of the first two groups of it, reflect and know the great -danger implied in them for the nation. And it is this table that can -tell the number of the propertyless families in the United States, even -without regarding any further material on the subject. - -But the first trouble about this table[34] is, that the author of it has -omitted $38,468,981[35] worth of wealth from the aggregate wealth of the -group 4, for the sake of roundness [SN: FIRST DIFFICULTY.] in the great -numbers, I suppose. Otherwise it is impossible to admit that the omitted -wealth did not belong to anyone in the United States at the time of his -making up the table. So that, restoring the $38,468,981 worth of wealth -to the 4th group, we find its aggregate amounting to $48,638,468,981 -worth of wealth. And it thus begins to correspond with the great masses -of wealth owned by the first two groups in the 1st table, p. 28 or 29. -This omission cannot be regarded as a serious one; but, to reach a -definite conclusion, we must restore it. - -The second trouble in the same table, p. 32, is, that the total of -families in it contains exactly 1,000,000 families more than the nation -consisted of in the year 1890. For there were 12,690,152 families in the -United [SN: SECOND DIFFICULTY.] States, whereas the second table -represents 13,690,152 of them, an absolutely round number having been -added to some group of the families. As this table has been published -since 1896, it may be that the author of it had a reason to add one -million families to the 1st group, because, as the population has -increased, so the families without property have also greatly increased -during the seven years since 1890. And he is undoubtedly right in his -calculations as to the growth of the propertyless. The statistics of -1890, also, represented an ample ground for similar calculations on the -part of anyone who has studied them. - -The estimates of Mr. G. Holmes, however, do not warrant the conclusion -that there were 7,871,099 family-tenants of farms and homes in the -United States in 1890. For, whatever degree of moderation [SN: NOT SO -MANY TENANTS.] might be in his estimates, this number of the -propertyless families could not have existed at that time in the United -States. For, if so many propertyless families had been in existence ten -years ago, a thousand presidents at this time might lose their heads in -view of the national troubles that could result from that abnormal -situation of so vast an extent. The individuals that now howl about an -unusual prosperity might be the indirect butchers of human flesh before -they themselves are butchered. No, we drop out the surplus million -families from the 1st group of the 2d table, and the table will be more -correct as follows: - - ====================================================== - 2d Table Restored. - --------------------+-+-------------+----------------- - Holders of Wealth. | |No. of Farms.|Value in Dollars. - --------------------+-+-------------+----------------- - Tenants of farms and| | | - homes |1| 6,871,099| 2,837,049,500 - Owners of mortgaged | | | - farms and homes | | | - worth less than | | | - $5,000 |2| 1,483,356| 2,614,955,764 - Owners of free farms| | | - and homes worth | | | - less than $5,000 |3| 3,078,077| 10,946,616,952 - Owners of farms and | | | - homes worth $5,000| | | - and over |4| 1,257,620| 48,638,468,981 - --------------------+-+-------------+----------------- - Totals | 12,690,152| 65,037,091,197 - ====================================================== - -The conclusions in the first two groups of families of this table now -appear as trustworthy as the entire conclusions of Dr. Spahr in the 1st -table, p. 28 or 29; and, that [SN: TRUSTWORTHY CONCLUSIONS.] the first -two groups, made up on the basis of Mr. Holmes’ estimates, actually -surpass everything in statistical importance for this country, no one -will doubt, when he has read this work. For the first group represents -the tenant-families that hire their farms and homes from others, being -themselves propertyless. And the second group represents families that -are in debt, and that are also rapidly becoming propertyless, as we -shall see in Chapter V. - -The differences between the 1st and the 2d tables, however, appear very -great. The 1st table shows that the national wealth is quite abnormally -concentrated in a [SN: DIFFERENCES IN THE TABLES.] comparatively few -hands, represented by the first two groups. The 2d table shows that the -same wealth is more equally distributed among the families of the last -two groups, than is true in the 1st table. And it is the 2d table which -was compiled from the estimates that by some men were regarded as -extremely moderate, and, therefore, inconsistent with the real situation -of the people. - -It is certainly not difficult to misrepresent the whole situation even -without intending to do any wrong to the nation. For the right or the -wrong representation of realities [SN: COULD BE MADE UNINTENTIONALLY.] -depends very greatly upon the handling of the averages in the -distribution of wealth among the people. The census facts or the -assessors’ returns may be right, as well as the classifications of these -facts or returns. And yet the final representations of them may be -twisted, either according to the desire of the statisticians or -according to the abstract rules of arithmetic. So that these rules and -desires may be satisfied, but the realities may easily be obscured, and -even the greatest national dangers may be concealed under an improper -use of the averages. - -Thus, we have seen the average of Mr. Shearman, which, including some of -the well-to-do families among millions of the poor, makes these poor -appear as if every [SN: OR WITH A BIAS OF WILL.] one of them possessed -$209, because Mr. Shearman’s average covered nearly 56-millions of -individuals.[36] While Mr. Carroll D. Wright,[37] describing the -problem: “Are the rich growing richer and the poor poorer?” makes a -single average on the basis of the entire population. His sweeping -average actually and correctly makes, not only the 56-millions of the -poor of Mr. Shearman, but every pauper, every tramp, and everyone in -hundreds of the lunatic and other asylums, worth $1,036 of wealth. -Whereas, in reality, 1 per cent of the population held more wealth than -the remaining 99, as Dr. Chas. Spahr has proved.[38] - -Now, something similar has taken place in the 3d group of the 2d table, -where more than 3-million families are represented as the “owners of -free farms and [SN: A DEGREE OF MODERATION.] homes worth less than -$5,000.” And, consequently, the difference between the 1st table and the -2d table in the wealthy groups appeared. The 2d table contradicts nearly -all statistical authorities and has been spoken of as based upon -extremely moderate conclusions. It is, therefore, necessary to show the -degree of moderation implied in its distribution of wealth. - -The fact that all families in the United States [SN: FIRM BASIS OF -CLASSIFICATION.] were classified according to their economic worth, as -families worth $5,000 and over and $5,000 and under, gives us the best -basis for a comparison of the two contradictory tables of the great -authorities. - -Let us first see the inconsistency in the groups of families which -represent the middle classes in the two tables. - - Reciprocal Comparison. - ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- - Families worth $5,000| | | - and under. | Number|The wealth of |Averages. - ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- - Difference from the | | | - number below | |$2,424,075,352| - ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- - Middle classes of the| | | - 1st R. table[39] |5,584,576| 8,522,541,600| 1,526 - ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- - Free owners of the | | | - 2d orig. table[40].|3,078,077|10,946,616,952| 3,556 - ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- - Difference from the | | | - number above |2,506,499| | - ---------------------+---------+--------------+--------- - -Now, the restored group of the middle classes of the first R. table -should be absolutely in favor of diminishing the differences in the -worth of the identical families and in [SN: INCONSISTENCY POINTS TO -TRUTH.] their number. Yet the two groups reciprocally exclude each other -by their opposite terms. So that, the comparison shows that the greater -number of families has much smaller amount of the aggregate wealth; and -the lesser number of families has much larger amount of the aggregate -wealth; and that the difference in family-numbers is greater than -2½-millions in favor of the group of the 1st table; and the difference -in the wealth, nearly 2½-billion dollars worth is in favor of the group -of the 2d table. Hence, the opposite terms of the two economically -similar groups can in no way coincide with one another. - -This being so, it is not difficult to find out the true situation as to -the actual distribution of wealth which ought to have been represented -by the 2d table. The alleged moderation of this table has [SN: AVERAGES -ARE THE CAUSES.] been brought about by the same influence of averages -which we have seen in the conclusions of Mr. Shearman.[41] One average -of this gentleman has covered 89.4 per cent of the population, and thus -made the wealth of the richest of them to be distributed among the -millions of the very poor. The 89.4 per cent includes nearly 56-millions -of individuals, whose aggregate wealth amounts to 18 per cent of the -national wealth, and apportions $209 worth of it to every individual. -But if you exclude only 20 per cent out of the 89.4 per cent of this -great mass of people, selecting the wealthiest of all for the exclusion, -you will thus have 69.4 per cent of the people left with less than 9 per -cent of the national wealth. Your average then will be altogether -different; it will cover masses of the poorest people, and every one of -them will have less than $99 worth of wealth. - -It is by a similar inclusion of a number of the well-to-do families -among the group of “owners of free farms and homes” that the more equal -distribution of wealth [SN: SOME OF THE RICH AVERAGED WITH THE POOR.] -has been obtained in the 2d table. Otherwise, this table could represent -a more melancholy array of facts than the presentation of these facts -which appeared in the first table. But, however bitter the truth may be, -it is always better to taste it than to be ignorant of its existence, -because one falsehood must create thousands of other falsehoods, and, -accumulated and multiplied into a tremendous mass, these falsehoods may -lead the nation to self-destruction even as many other nations were led -to it. - -Dividing again all families of the nation into the families worth less -than $5,000, and families worth [SN: THE SAME ECONOMIC BASES OF THE -AUTHORS.] over $5,000, we shall now compare these two classes of -families in both tables upon their common basis. And, as this basis -presents the very bottom of statistics, the comparison therefore cannot -fail to show us the very naked truth as to the actual distribution of -wealth which has partly been obscured by the 2d table. - - Comparison of the Poor. - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - Families worth under $5,000. |Number of |Aggregates of wealth - |families. | in dollars. - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - First three groups of the | | - 2d table[42] |11,432,532| 16,398,622,216 - Last two groups of the | | - 1st R. table[43] |11,169,152| 9,360,228,000 - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - Differences from the 2d | | - table | 263,380| 7,038,394,216 - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - - Comparison of the Rich. - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - Families worth $5,000 and over.|Number of | Aggregates of wealth - |families. | in dollars. - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - Two first groups of the | | - 1st R. table[43] | 1,521,000| 55,676,863,197 - The fourth group of the | | - 2d restored table[43] | 1,257,620| 48,638,468,981 - Differences from the 1st | | - R. table | 263,380| 7,038,394,216 - -------------------------------+----------+--------------------- - -As you see, the comparison of the families of the same worth in the -different tables shows that the poor classes of the 2d table are larger -by 263,380 families, and richer by $7,038,394,216 worth of wealth, [SN: -DIFFERENCES REVEALED.] than they are in the first table. On the -contrary, the comparison of the wealthy classes that consist of families -worth $5,000 and over, shows that the 1st table is larger by 263,380 -families, and richer by $7,038,394,216 worth of wealth, than the same -families in the 2d table. Hence, the concentration of wealth in the -first table is by $7,038,394,216 worth greater than it is in the 2d -table. And it is clear that this amount of wealth is closely connected -with the 263,380 families of the well-to-do classes. The question, -therefore, is, Where could Dr. Spahr find so many more families worth -$5,000 and over, than Mr. Holmes has found? - -We know that both these great authorities dealt with the same primary -facts of statistics, though Dr. Spahr dealt with them as they appeared -in the Surrogate Courts, thus raising the value of the [SN: BASAL FACTS -UNALTERABLE.] facts. And we know that these facts or returns represent -the worth of every family, just at it actually was at the time of the -11th census. Supposing then that the above families were represented as -worth $26,723 each, could Dr. Spahr make each one of them worth $4,000 -of wealth, with the purpose of including them among the millions of -families worth $5,000 and under in each case? And could he thus rob the -263,380 families of their ownership of wealth, in order to make the -distribution of wealth so abnormal as his table shows it? No, sir; this -is an utter impossibility on anyone’s part. And Dr. Spahr represented -the above families among those that were worth $5,000 and over in each -case, and that is what anyone ought to have done in his place. - -While in the case of the second table, the little more equal -distribution of wealth appeared not because it was actually so, but -because the above 263,380 families, with their $26,723 worth of wealth -[SN: UNREAL BASIS OF MORE EQUAL DISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH] on the average, -unintentionally or accidentally, were included among the families worth -less than $5,000. Consequently, their aggregate wealth, amounting to -$7,038,394,216 worth, has been nominally distributed among the group of -“owners of free farms and homes worth less than $5,000” to every family. -This inclusion was as easily performed as was the inclusion of the -well-to-do among the poor by Mr. Shearman. We therefore subtract the -above families and their wealth from the 3d group and add them to the -4th group of families worth $5,000 and over, in order to show that these -families and wealth belonged to another class of the people, as follows: - - 2d Right Table. - ------------------------+----------+----------------- - Holders of Wealth. | Number. |Value in dollars. - ------------------------+----------+----------------- - Tenants of farms and | | - homes | 6,871,099| 2,837,049,500 - Owners of mortgaged | | - farms and homes worth | | - less than $5,000 | 1,483,356| 2,614,955,764 - Owners of free farms and| | - homes worth less than | | - $5,000 | 2,814,697| 3,908,222,736 - Owners of farms and | | - homes worth $5,000 and| | - over | 1,521,000|55,676,863,197 - ------------------------+----------+----------------- - Totals |12,690,152|65,037,091,197 - ------------------------+----------+----------------- - -Now this table represents the very essence of statistics on the -distribution of wealth which was [SN: TABLE MOST VALUABLE.] worked out -by the two contradictory authorities. The 4th group of it contains the -263,380 families with their aggregate wealth, and equals the first two -groups in the 1st R. table, these two and that being made of the -families—each worth $5,000 and over. - -It should be noticed here, that neither the 263,380 families that we -have now included in the proper group of the table, nor their aggregate -wealth, had anything to [SN: GROUPS SIGNIFICANT.] do with the groups of -mortgagors and tenants in the 2d table. These two groups of families -have been separated from the influence of the free owners of wealth, by -being debtors and tenants, who have a definite significance of their own -in the statistics. And this is the reason why the subtracted families -worth $5,000 and over could only be lodged in the 3d group of families -worth below $5,000 under its wholesale average. - -It should also be remembered that, though the 4th group of the last -table represents an enormous amount of wealth, yet there are hundreds of -thousands of families in it which are worth but few dollars [SN: THE -WEALTHY ONLY FEW.] over $5,000 worth of wealth. So that, the real -concentration of that enormous amount of wealth remains in the -possession of less than half a million families, as these facts have -been represented by Mr. Shearman and the others in the first chapter. -And nothing can be said against the accuracy of the careful estimates of -the wealth of the very wealthy by Mr. Shearman and the other -authorities. - -In order to have a more definite idea of the distribution of wealth, let -us compare both tables on one page, and remember that if the group -wealth were equally divided among the group-families, each family could -have such amount of it as the averages indicate. And mind that the next -two tables, being based upon the same census facts, represent the -results of careful comparison of the original ones. - - The 1st Table as Restored. - - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - Owners of Wealth. | Number. | The wealth of | Average. - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - The poorer classes | | | - under $500 | 5,584,576 |$ 837,686,400 |$ 150 - | | | - The middle classes | | | - $500 to $5,000 | 5,584,576 | 8,522,541,600 | 1,526 - | | | - The well-to-do | | | - classes $5,000 | | | - to $50,000 | 1,394,250 | 22,676,863,197 | 16,264 - | | | - The wealthy classes | | | - $50,000 and over | 126,750 | 33,000,000,000 | 260,355 - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - The totals. | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125 - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - - The 2d Table as Restored. - - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - Owners of Wealth. | Number. | The wealth of | Average. - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - Tenants of farms | | | - and homes | 6,871,099 |$ 2,837,049,500 |$ 413 - | | | - Owners of mortgaged | | | - farms and | | | - homes worth less | | | - than $5,000 | 1,483,356 | 2,614,955,764 | 1,762 - | | | - Owners of free | | | - farms and homes | | | - worth less than | | | - $5,000 | 2,814,697 | 3,908,222,736 | 1,388 - | | | - Owners of farms | | | - and homes worth | | | - $5,000 and over | 1,521,000 | 55,676,863,197 | 37,117 - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - The totals. | 12,690,152 | 65,037,091,197 | 5,125 - --------------------+------------+----------------+---------- - -It should be noticed again, that the differences in the family averages -of the corresponding groups of the two tables, depend on the differences -in the [SN: AVERAGES OF FAMILIES’ WORTH DIFFER.] numbers and in the -aggregate wealth of the same groups of the tables. And these differences -could not be avoided, since the two authorities have made a different -classification of the families of different worth. - -But the comparative importance of the two tables consists in the fact, -that the last group of the 1st table shows the extremely abnormal -concentration of wealth in [SN: THE RICH AND THE POOR GROUPS.] the hands -of 126,750 families, which possess more wealth than the remaining -12,563,402 families do, on the one hand. While, on the other hand, the -first group of the 2d table shows that there have been 6,871,099 -families without real property; and the second group shows, that there -were 1,483,356 families in debt and in danger of losing their -properties, and that both these groups of families have been in the -state of economic slavery to the wealthy few. But we shall examine their -conditions of existence later on. - - - GREAT BRITAIN, FRANCE, AND GERMANY. - -“The distribution of private property in Great Britain and Ireland in -1891,” was such that it was said “that less than 2 per cent of the -families of the United Kingdom [SN: THE PROPERTYLESS IN BRITAIN.] hold -about three times as much private property as all the remainder, and -that 93 per cent of the people hold less than 8 per cent of the -accumulated wealth. There remains, therefore, nearly 6,000,000 -families”—i. e., 30,000,000 individuals—“or more than three-fourths of -the people of Great Britain and Ireland, without any registered property -whatever. They have indeed their household goods, but the total value of -these can hardly exceed £100,000,000,”[44] which is little over $16 to -every individual. - -“The ownership of land is an important factor in the social condition of -a people,” says Mayo Smith.[45] And “if we contrast the [SN: -DISTRIBUTION OF LAND IN FRANCE AND ENGLAND.] peasant proprietorship -system of France, with more than 4,500,000 owners of land, with the -landlord system of England, with its 325,000 owners, the social as well -as the economic influence must be very different”[45] in the two -nations. Certainly the French people feel and enjoy economic freedom, -while the British people are pressed down by an economic slavery. - -In fact, the statisticians seem to agree that the distribution of -wealth, even in Paris, the capital of France, and in Berlin, the capital -of Germany, is proportionally much more equal than it is in the nation -of Great Britain or in that of the United States, although it is natural -that the largest cities, as a rule, have the distribution of wealth much -worse than the nations behind them. - -[Illustration: - - ILLUSTRATIVE CHART. - - Every block here represents a comparative average wealth of one man, - woman, or child of the respective groups in the 2d Corrected Table, - p. 51; while the figures above show the numbers of individuals - owning one block each, as indicated.] - -While the thirty millions of British people have on the average $16 -worth of wealth, the American people of the same class have somewhat -more of this kind of wealth than the British, as the last table, -individually regarded, shows the average property of every person of the -families. It is as follows. - - The 2d Corrected Table, 1890. - --------------------+--------------+----------------+---------- - Holders of Wealth. | Individuals. | The wealth of | Average. - --------------------+--------------+----------------+---------- - Tenants of farms | | | - and homes | 33,908,277 |$ 2,837,049,500 |$ 83 - | | | - Owners of mortgaged | | | - farms and | | | - homes worth less | | | - than $5,000 | 7,319,697 | 2,614,955,764 | 357 - | | | - Owners of free | | | - farms and homes | | | - worth less than | | | - $5,000 | 13,888,979 | 3,908,222,736 | 287 - | | | - Owners of farms | | | - and homes worth | | | - $5,000 to $50,000 | 6,879,935 | 22,676,863,197 | 3,296 - | | | - Owners of farms | | | - and homes worth | | | - $50,000 and over | 625,362 | 33,000,000,000 | 52,769 - --------------------+--------------+----------------+---------- - The totals. | 62,622,250 | 65,037,091,197 | 1,036 - --------------------+--------------+----------------+---------- - -The average of $83 worth of personal property in the 1st group of -individuals here is a little too large, because, subtracting the surplus -million families from this group,[46] we have left the wealth [SN: THE -POOREST CLASSES, 1890.] of it untouched. In any way, this group contains -27,117,000 individuals having on the average $30 worth of property each, -according to the last group of families in the table of Dr. Spahr.[47] -It does not, however, make a great difference on the whole, because the -group of tenants, since 1890, has undoubtedly increased up to 38,837,849 -without having been able to add anything more to its aggregate wealth. - -The increase of the propertyless accrues from the natural increase of -the population, and from the loss of the mortgaged properties [SN: -CAUSES OF THE INCREASE OF THE PROPERTYLESS] by foreclosure of the -mortgages in the 2d group, and from the immigration of the propertyless -foreigners[48] without special means; while the people of the 3d group -have sunk by thousands into debt from having mortgaged their properties; -and only about a million families of the last two groups have been -exceedingly prosperous, as we shall understand the situation later on. - - - - - CHAPTER III. - - PROPERTIED AND PROPERTYLESS PEOPLE. - - -The statistical authorities told us that “Less than half the families in -the United States are propertyless,”[49] and we desire to know the -chances for, and resources of, their living; and what it means to be a -propertied person or to be a propertyless person upon earth. - -Let us see the clear distinction between the [SN: CONDITIONS OF LIFE OF -THE PROPERTIED AND PROPERTYLESS.] state of a property owner and the -state of a propertyless person; between the conditions of life of the -former, and the conditions of life of the latter, and how both are -affected by and related to these conditions. - -First of all an owner of property and a propertyless person, are, on an -average, perfectly equal in that they have physical strength, and in -that they have equal rights to use or to apply that strength somewhere -[SN: EQUAL IN PHYSICAL STRENGTH.] upon the wealth of an owner of wealth. -And here we meet the first difference between them: An owner of property -has a chance to apply, and to spend his strength upon his own property; -if, for instance, this property is land that gives him any kind of -returns in exchange for his [SN: THE ONE HAS, THE OTHER HAS NO CHANCE.] -labor and toil. The propertyless person has neither this chance nor this -right to toil anywhere, unless he pays for the opportunity of using his -strength, by dividing the results of his labor between himself and the -owner of wealth who permits him to draw some income from the resources -of his own property or wealth. So far, the advantage of the propertied -person is such that he has twice as much right in his strength, and -twice as much chance to profitably use his personal strength. - -Now, every one knows that whatever the wealth of a nation may be, it is -primarily derived from land which is the only inexhaustible source of -riches, or, of derived wealth. And when a person gets [SN: LAND PRIME -ORIGIN OF WEALTH.] into his possession a portion of land, whether it -will be in a city, town, or in the country, he then obtains a number of -resources for his life; he becomes a propertied man, and he can apply -his strength, his skill or his intellect upon his own property and thus -reap the fruits of his labor. The land then is the first store of -wealth; but it almost never yields anything to man, unless he labors, -works upon it, with a hoe, a plough, a scythe or some other implement -that aids him to draw greater returns from his land. Again, if iron, for -instance, is primarily derived from land, then [SN: LAND MAIN FACTOR OF -WEALTH.] when it comes to the forge, where the hammer, the anvil and the -other tools aid the blacksmith to make an ax out of the rough iron, the -ax will be of a greater value than the material he used for it. But what -really made the ax is his personal strength and the skill that were -aided by the tools he used. These tools with the blacksmith, and those -implements with the farmer are economically called [SN: SKILL SECOND -FACTOR OF WEALTH.] “capital,” because they aid to draw more wealth by -the labor of man. It follows, that land is the main factor of wealth; -that human energy or labor is the next factor of wealth; and that -capital, as aiding labor and land to produce more wealth than they can -yield without it, is the third factor of wealth. Money is not regarded -as direct capital here. - -As _capital_ is a very important source of income to a propertied man, -and as it is perhaps not clearly understood by all, let me illustrate -this factor of wealth by introducing more examples of it. - -Capital from an economic standpoint is that wealth which produces -farther wealth, or simply aids to create farther wealth. A needle is -capital, because it aids to [SN: CAPITAL THIRD FACTOR OF WEALTH.] make a -shirt that costs more than the material used for it. A sewing machine is -capital of more effective kind than the needle used by hand, because it -aids to produce more wealth than the tailor or the seamstress can -produce without it. A lathe is capital, because it not only shapes the -round forms of any material more accurately than [SN: MACHINERY, TOOLS, -ARTIFICIAL WEALTH.] the artizan would ever be able to make without it, -but it greatly saves his time on every piece of the work; thus saving -time it aids in producing more wealth. A factory, as a whole (including -the building and machinery), is capital, because all the machinery, all -tools and instruments used in it produce farther wealth from the raw -materials, and serve as sources of income to the owner of this property. -Under the care of the stock-raiser, cattle are capital, because they -grow and multiply; but the meat or beef is utility, because it may be -unproductively consumed.[50] Agricultural implements, as well as the -fertilizers, like guano, phosphates and many others are capital, because -they increase fertility and increase the produce of land, which makes a -greater income in favor of its owner. A thousand different machineries -and special instruments might be introduced here to show that each one -of them has been invented for the purpose of aiding to create more -wealth out of less wealth. And that all of them and every one, when used -by an owner of wealth, is a definite source of income and of profit to -him, because it aids his own skill and energy to obtain greater returns -in exchange for his labor and mind, than he can obtain without it. - -But the most effective factor in aiding to produce more wealth and a -much greater income for an owner of wealth is the energy of steam or any -other mechanical force, applicable to various forms of labor [SN: -MECHANICAL FORCE; INCREASE OF STEAM.] and completely obedient to the -bidding of man. “Steam power has increased in the United States from -3½-millions, in 1860, to 17-millions horse power in 1895; while in Great -Britain and Ireland it has increased from 2½- to 13-millions; Germany -from ⅞- to 7⅔-millions, and in France from 1 to 5-millions horse-power. -The increase of this capital has been most manifest in manufactures,” -says Dr. Henderson.[51] But it should be remarked at once that no one of -the families worth below $5,000 could apply these millions of horsepower -of steam force upon their properties. This energy has all the time been -a profitable source of great income in favor of the families that made -the wealthiest group in the tables of statistics, whereas the others -have had but little crumbs of its increase of wealth. The mechanical -force, as every one knows, is in service of the capitalists. - -But when we look into the limits of towns and cities, we find millions -of rentable properties of all possible kinds; and every factory, [SN: -SOURCES OF INCOME.] every storehouse, every shop and every dwelling -house there is a sure source of income to the propertied man. The very -sweat-shops, where the working people can not, on an average, live -longer than 28 years—even these dens of poison and pestilence are -inexhaustible sources of income and profit to their owners. - -As to the town and city lots, they are all sources of greater or less -income to the men who own them. Whether these lots of land are occupied -by [SN: SOURCES OF INDIRECT INCOME.] anything or are remaining waste, -makes little difference, because as the town population increases, their -values also increase in proportion as the city population and its -business increase; the owners of properties towards centers of the -cities are usually bound to be rich out of the resources of rent. Even a -simple house, somewhere about the marginal line of a city or town is -usually a source of indirect income to its owner, because he and his -family may have a comfortable shelter in it, without which they would -pay the rent for another’s house,[52] and would carry on all other -expenses of life, just as they do in their own house, in which they save -the rental money for some other purposes of living. - -Now then, whatever property you may think of—whether natural or -artificial, whether animate or inanimate, that a person has possession -of—it is always wealth, and a source of income in his favor. [SN: WEALTH -CREATED BY LABOR.] The natural wealth is the land, wherever it may be in -convenient places, it may always provide one or more resources of income -in exchange for the application and expense of strength or skill of -labor upon it. The artificial wealth includes all capital, whatever it -may be, it is capital, if it can assist the labor energy to double, -triple or multiple the income and profit, drawn from the natural -resource to which the labor-strength is applied. The rentable house or -any other building is artificial wealth. And it is also a source of -income to its owner who, by a use of skill and by an application of -labor energy, can make his source of income give a multiple yield, in -return for the expense of his personal strength upon it. - -Thus, the indirect and direct resources of a propertied person, -therefore, are always many and complete when he works out the wealth -himself. [SN: COMPLETE AND INCOMPLETE INCOMES OF PROPERTY OWNERS.] By -complete I mean this, that whatever his intelligence and strength can -draw out of the source they are applied to, it is always his and is -always to his benefit. An incomplete income or yield from a source of -wealth, to its owner, will be this, that, if he hires the energy, or the -skill of another person to apply upon his property, then his income is -incomplete, because he has to pay for the hired labor energy as well as -for hired skill. In this way an owner of wealth of any kind may even -divide the yield and the product of the source of income into halves. - -But as long as a person is an owner of wealth, an owner of capital, and -an owner of physical and mental energy, he is a possessor of [SN: -PROPERTY GUARANTY OF LIFE.] resources; his labor energy and his -existence are then fully guaranteed for himself, his wife, and children -by his wealth, because wealth or property becomes a direct source of -income, when he himself labors on it, and an indirect, when he rents it -to others. A propertied man, therefore, is safe forever by the resources -of his property, which yield incomes and profits for sustenance of the -highest possible life, highest education, freedom, and enjoyment. - -But what about the propertyless man? How many resources, or how many -sources of income [SN: HAS THE PROPERTYLESS ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, ETC.?] -has he for his own life, the life of his wife and children? What sources -of income has he for education, for bread and butter, for clothes and -dress, for their shelter and his own? What resources has he for his -sustenance in this world, when the entire world tends rapidly to be the -property of a very few persons? - -He has neither land, nor capital, nor house; he has neither natural, nor -artificial wealth to serve him, and hence, has not a single one of the -above described sources of [SN: THE PROPERTYLESS HIMSELF IS A SOURCE OF -MULTIPLE EXPENSE.] income and profit which the Creator provided for -man’s enjoyment. On the contrary, the propertyless man himself is a -source of multiple expense; he has but a store of labor energy within -himself, which store must be supported by its own effort, and that too -while his life is guaranteed by nothing but by his physical strength and -natural mind. And it is only these two that unite to support him who is -the single source of the following manifold expenses in favor of many -owners of properties and wealth, who sometimes make enormous fortunes by -the efforts of the propertyless. - -If a propertyless man desires to exist at all in the sight of his God in -this quasi-civilized world, he must spend his life in the following -ways: - -1. He must pay from it for a shelter to one or another property owner, -when this owner has a rentable house, which house serves as a source of -income and profit to the owner. So that the tenant of his house becomes -a permanent resource for the owner’s well-being, because he cannot avoid -paying rent to the one or the other. - -2. He must pay for his clothes to another property owner or an owner of -wealth, who gets income and profit from selling the [SN: EXPENSES FOR -CLOTHES, ETC.] goods, and who gets incomes and profits for making and -producing the goods. And as a consumer, the propertyless man is relied -upon as a source of income by these owners of wealth, and hence, he is a -resource of their own well-being. He must also pay for laundry to -another owner of wealth and must be a real source of income and profit -for him, because he too is a propertied man and has many resources for -life. - -3. He must pay for his board, whether in a boarding house or in a -restaurant, it makes some difference; but by boarding in either [SN: -EXPENSES FOR NOURISHMENT.] one or the other, he must be a source of -income and profit to servants and waiters every day, and to a crowd of -owners of wealth who are ever ready to draw all from him they can. But -if he boards in the house he rents, and if his wife performs the -domestic duties in his case, then the expense of his life is reduced -through this channel in favor of the wife. Nevertheless, he must -continue to be a source of income in favor of the butcher, the baker and -grocer, and some other propertied men who derive their profits from him -at a certain per cent in the way of his nourishment. - -4. The propertyless man is another source of expense in favor of the -support of the general government of the nation, a state government, a -county government, and perhaps a municipal one. And he [SN: EXPENSES FOR -GOVERNMENT, ETC.] pays the taxes in the prices of the goods and clothing -he wears; in the prices of food and the drinks he consumes,—these -expenses make him a sure source of income to many other owners of -wealth, and so on. And to this channel of drain must be added his -expenses for education, for different asylums, for churches and other -institutions; expenses for the books and newspapers he reads; expenses -for the carfare, etc., he cannot avoid; expenses for the physicians he -is cured by, and the drugs his strength is invigorated with, and so on. -Thus every one of these propertied persons obtains his own percentage of -income from the resourceless man. And certainly there are many other -channels of expense for him in the society he comes into contact with. -It is really impossible to number here even the unavoidable expenses of -the propertyless man. - -It is then in the above directions that the physical and mental energy -must run out of the propertyless person. And of course it runs out in -the form of currency or the money by which he pays for shelter, for -clothing, etc., for services [SN: HIS ENERGY IS DRAINED BY THE -PROPERTIED MEN.] and all utilities, to the owners of wealth. But, if the -propertyless man himself is only a source to be drained by the others, -and if he has neither land, nor capital, nor any other natural or -artificial wealth to draw an income from, then his very strength is good -for nothing. For the strength itself can neither be eaten nor can he pay -with it any one who has the right to draw on it. His energy must, -therefore, be first exchanged either for money or for some other -utilities of value which are derived out of wealth, out of property that -he does not possess. How then can this persistently drained source -become filled or supplied again? Where is the resource of his own -income? Surely he can not exist without one at least. And, being -propertyless, he naturally does not have even the single one outside of -himself. Yet he has to live from without or he must die of starvation -from within. - -Now, the only chance for the propertyless man to live is to go again to -an owner of wealth, and to hire some one or another resource [SN: HE MAY -HAVE BUT ONE CHANCE FOR A PAYMENT.] of income from him and to apply his -energy to it, paying for the permission. Again paying, paying is the -only hope for the propertyless man. And this is the most important point -after all, because he must pay even for the application of his personal -energy to all natural and artificial resources of wealth, or income. Has -any one understood what it means—to pay for an application of labor -energy to wealth that the merciful Creator provided for man? I am sure -that the politico-economists do not understand it. A few of them hit -this point, sometimes, but unconsciously, without conceiving its -significance. - -The propertyless person, then, who is drained in all directions, and who -has but one chance to restore his expended energy from a single source -of income—this man again becomes an additional source of expense in -favor of an owner of wealth, an additional source of income and profit -to propertied men. - -But where, and how, can this unfortunate creature of God, this multiple -source of income and profit for men, further pay and expend his -strength, for becoming a still further source of income in favor of the -propertied men? - -This question, after the four previously explained series of drains of -the propertyless man, demands the next point. - -5. The propertyless man can not even make himself the source of income -and profit to others without paying an exorbitant price for it to an -owner of wealth. If, for instance, he labors for wages, his employer and -others finally obtain from 25 to 50 or 75 per cent or even more profit -out of the results of his labor. If he works on a farm, in a plant, or -any other wealth [SN: HIS EXPENSES FOR EMPLOYMENT IN ANY SPHERE.] with -capital, or works in making capital, he must in any way divide the -results of his work between the owner of wealth and himself. His portion -is usually paid by time in money, as wages, as a salary, or in some -other way; while the whole result of his work remains, and is dispensed -by the owner of wealth who is profited by him. If the propertyless -person serves to an owner of wealth as a clerk, a bookkeeper, salesman, -or in any other capacity, he cannot serve unless he or she is a -profitable source of income to the propertied master who gives him the -chance to supply his ever drained source of multiple expenses. If, -further, the propertyless man leases a farm or any other wealth of a -propertied person, he has always to divide the results of his labor -between himself and the owner of wealth. Whereas, if the owner of it -himself labors on his wealth, then, the whole result of his toil must -remain as a reward to himself. And there is the difference: The tenant -or the lessee is obliged to labor twice as hard as the propertied man in -order to derive so much income for himself, as the owner of wealth can -derive by working half as hard; and that is because the owner of -property is drawing all income of his labor for himself, while the -propertyless man is drawing income for himself and for the propertied -man, to whom the former is a source of income by paying rent. If, -finally, the propertyless man labors upon a rentable source of income, -and then borrows money for improvements, in addition to the paying for -that source, he thereby makes himself a source of income in favor of the -creditor, by paying per cents for the loan; and, consequently, he must -divide the results of his toil between himself and between two owners of -wealth. The improvements, being a capital, must aid him to produce more -wealth than he can produce without it; but the high rate of percentage -which exists in America must surely ruin the debtor, because per cents -in favor of lenders of money, etc., generally run from 6 to 12 per cent -per annum; and in some cases the money sharks obtain even from 15 to 18 -per cent. - -What then are the advantages of the propertied person and the -disadvantages of the propertyless man? - -From the preceding it is clearly seen that both men are on an equality -merely in the physical energy. And the propertied person has an absolute -advantage for developing his mental energy or skill. We [SN: ADVANTAGES -AND DISADVANTAGES.] have, therefore, to regard their physical energy as -an equal in both. But, with the propertied man, this energy is -surrounded by multiple resources of income; so that to whatever resource -he applies his energy, it always yields him the whole results of his -labor. An application of capital in his power multiplies the yield in -his favor. An application of the hired labor energy still farther -multiplies the yield and increases his income. His [SN: A PROPERTIED IS -A MAN OF MULTIPLE INCOMES.] physical energy, therefore, must be regarded -as a source of multiple income even in relation to a small amount of -wealth or income-bearing property.[53] On the contrary, when there is -plenty of employment, the energy of the propertyless person is itself a -source of multiple expense in favor of the propertied men. And again, -[SN: A PROPERTYLESS IS A MAN OF MULTIPLE EXPENSES.] when there is -employment, he is permitted to apply his energy but to a single resource -of income; and when permitted to do so, the propertyless man can only -draw about half the income that this resource can yield to his energy, -while the other half of it must go to the multiple incomes of the -propertied men who employ him as the people call it. Hence, being -surrounded with the inexhaustible wealth of nature, with innumerable -resources of income, the propertyless man is only a semi-sourced man—a -man of semi-sourced income. He is a man who is entitled to a portion of -the yield, for the expense of energy which is equal to two or more -portions of it. And there is nothing more in the whole realm of wealth -than a semi-income from one source for the man who himself is a source -of multiple expenses in the favor of many owners of wealth. A greater -injustice than this could not be fabricated by mankind under the -heavens. - -But what about the propertyless, when there is no employment at all? Or, -when the caprice of the propertied is not satisfied by the halves of the -yields produced by the [SN: PROPERTYLESS OUT OF EMPLOYMENT.] labor -energy and skill of the propertyless people? What, when they demand -still more impossible efficiency in product from the emaciated energy of -their victims? The answer is clear and but one. These economic slaves, -these victims of the greatest injustice and absurdity are thrown back by -thousands into the sphere of humiliation under public relief. And who -constitutes this public? Nearly all the same propertyless millions, who -relieve the others, when they themselves are not yet on the point of -starvation. - -And who is after all accused? Who is searched? Whose character and -history of life is mercilessly scrutinized at the bars of charity? [SN: -HE IS REGARDED AS INFERIOR.] Again the same propertyless victims, the -same economic slaves, whose lives have been spent in working for the -owners of wealth, owners of property, of fortunes. - -It is certainly not with Japan, nor even civilized England, where -primogeniture persists to reign, and where the hereditary noblemen [SN: -PRINCIPLES OF INJUSTICE.] equally continue to suck the energy of the -British and Irish people and of the peoples of their colonies that we -have to deal with. “In 1891 Great Britain and Ireland had had nearly -6,000,000 propertyless families[54];” and they have been accustomed for -centuries to spend more than half of their energy in favor of the lords -of property, who are the lords of nearly all resources of wealth in -Britain and in many other parts of the world. But we have to deal with -the people of the United States, whose fathers tried by all means to -escape the influence of primogeniture, and whose children have now -reached the same economic [SN: DIVIDOGENESURE.] condition of slavery, -but under a different title, viz., that of dividogenesure.[55] As its -definition here shows, the principle of dividogenesure involves both the -individual and class dependence of the needy upon the wealthy and -applies to the entire millions of the group of tenant families, as well -as to the group of mortgagor families of the 2d table.[56] For all these -families have been dividing the sole results of their labor or toil, in -one way or another, between themselves and their economic masters that -they wholly or partly depend upon. The subsequent chapters, however, -will better explain the situation of their dependence. - -While here we shall but briefly indicate that dividogenesure, as a -principle of tacit reality, separates the people into two classes: 1st, -into individuals of multiple expenditure in each case, but with a -possible semi-income [SN: ECONOMIC CLASSES.] for supplying this -expenditure; and 2d, into individuals of also multiple expenditure for -living, but at the same time of multiple incomes sufficient to leave a -considerable net profit or balance for their future. This balance or -profit, in some cases, gradually amounts to millions of dollars’ worth -of wealth, remultiplying further incomes most rapidly; while the -individuals of the first class become absolutely dependent upon the -second even for the semi-income which may at any time be refused them on -account of too many individuals in need of resources for incomes -belonging to the second class. - -And it further follows, that when the resourceless are admitted into the -sphere of dividogenesure, [SN: ONE SPHERE.] then their multiple -expenditure is meagerly supplied. But when they are refused admittance -into this sphere, then their unavoidable fate is starvation or falling -back into the realm of public relief for the unemployed. - -As to their fate under the public relief, Dr. Amos G. Warner says: “The -most difficult [SN: CHARITIES ANOTHER SPHERE.] problem in the whole -realm of poor-relief is this of Providing for the unemployed. England -has worked at it intermittently from the time of Elizabeth” (1558-1603) -up to date without success. For there were more than 30-millions of -individuals without property in Great Britain and Ireland, when Dr. -Warner was writing, and he continued as follows: - -“The most careful investigation made in this country regarding enforced -idleness was probably that conducted by the Massachusetts Bureau of -Labor during the [SN: LOSS OF TIME.] depression of 1885. There were -during that year in Massachusetts 816,470 persons engaged in gainful -occupations; of these 241,589 were unemployed during part of the year. -The time lost, if we consider only the principal occupation of each -individual, was 82,744 years; but many persons, when unable to work at -their principal occupation, had some subsidiary work. Making the proper -deductions for the time thus put in, the net absolute loss of -working-time amounted to 78,717.76 years. * * * Averaged among those who -lost a certain amount of time, the loss per man was 3.91 months.”[57] or -nearly four months. - -This description shows the absolute helplessness of the resourceless -people in the State of Massachusetts alone, while there were 48 other -States and Territories besides Massachusetts in this country. In [SN: -LOSS OF MONEY.] all these States and Territories, therefore, not only -millions of years of working-time must have been lost during the -depression of 1882 to 1885, but millions of dollars of public and -private money was unproductively spent for the relief of the -propertyless from starvation, cold and from other distresses. And after -all, that was a comparatively mild reality. For the same Dr. Warner -further writes: - -“This present chapter passes from my hand in March, 1894, when special -relief-work for the unemployed is being carried forward on a _scale -never before known or [SN: HOMELESS CONSTANT FACTOR.] needed in this -country_.[58] It is therefore not possible to give the results of this -emergency work.” * * * But the relief must be given. “The present -chapter is concerned especially with _the problem of the homeless poor -as a constant factor in the administration of charities_.[59] The -question of how to deal with the tramp is said to be of special urgency -in every locality in the United States with which I am at all -acquainted. From Boston to San Francisco, and from St. Paul to New -Orleans, complaints come of a number of tramps, which is alleged to be -‘especially’ large in each case.”[60] - -In fact, Dr. Warner’s book of more than 400 pages is one that represents -the saddest spectacle [SN: TWO SISTERS OF INIQUITY.] of human misery on -the largest scale. It treats all possible causes of the misery, -excepting the main, and all-powerful, cause of all the minor causes, -which I have named dividogenesure, because it is the sister of -primogeniture, the one being as iniquitous for millions of families as -the other. - -As a universally pernicious principle, dividogenesure is always working -in behalf of a few favorites. It has always been unjust to the -employees, even when those [SN: IMPLIES DEGREES OF INJUSTICE.] favorites -commanded an equal number of places of employment to the number of the -employees in a nation, because the latter have always been obliged to -divide the results of their toil at an unjust rate of per cent with the -former. The injustice of dividogenesure, however, intensifies as soon as -the number of the employees becomes greater than the number of the -places of employment, and this injustice grows especially intense when -these employees appear to be the propertyless individuals. And when a -nation has so many propertyless individuals as to outnumber by millions -the places of employment, then, the great injustice of dividogenesure -changes into the very foundation of iniquity. For its favorites, then, -make all possible devices, like the blanks with tens of scrutinizing -questions, and other humiliating devices for the purpose of selecting -the most efficient applicants for employment at the cheapest possible -rates of payment. Thus, the employed ones become harder and harder -economic slaves of these favorites, while the unemployed are cast out of -the sphere of the slavery without bread, etc., into the sphere of -starvation and the public relief. - -Further, dividogenesure is not a system of ordinary slavery, where the -slaves are dependent upon their masters for living and dying. It is not -the slavery that imposes a moral obligation upon the masters [SN: IT IS -NOT AN ORDINARY SLAVERY.] in favor of the slaves who are subject to -them. No, no, dividogenesure has made millions of families absolutely -dependent on its favorites, but it has removed from these favorites all -moral obligations in favor of the modern economic slaves. The modern -master of hundreds of the slaves can extort the last inch of labor -energy from each of them, and yet can live in perfect peace under the -shield of dividogenesure without responsibility and without the -slightest remorse of conscience. He does not compel any of the slaves to -make applications for employment, for working out his wealth and -fortune. But he knows very well that there are invisible, omnipotent and -omnipresent forces, [SN: UNSEEN FORCES.] namely: Hunger and thirst, or -the multiple expenditure in every individual case, which mightily push -the slaves to his commanding mastership. And the only duty -dividogenesure bids him to perform, is to choose the most efficient -applicants for the lowest pay, as they would seem to be the most -profitable for himself. As to the rejected ones, it is neither his -business nor his duty to care whether they live or perish by fire, by -cold, by disease, wither away or starve to death. - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - - ABNORMITY OF THE SOCIAL SITUATION. - - -The preceding chapter has shown the differences between the conditions -of life of the propertied [SN: DIFFERENCES IN CONDITIONS OF LIFE.] and -of the propertyless people. It has explained the multiple expenditures -of the resourceless, and how they are obliged to labor under the -principle of dividogenesure without ever being able to appropriate the -full results of their labor to themselves. The present chapter will -reveal the astonishing number of the propertyless in the United States, -and the places where they are mostly to be found. - -However, before proceeding to examine the investigations about the -people without property, we must add here, that the propertyless [SN: -THE PROPERTYLESS PAY RENT OR ARE EXPELLED.] are those that occupy -houses, or rooms, or simply little cells in the rentable properties of -the propertied, paying rent for them. They are, therefore, regarded as -the tenants of homes, and when occupying rentable farms, they are -regarded as the tenants of farms. And as long as they are able to earn -and to pay the rents on time, they are regarded as good people, good -families and respectable persons, because they constitute the real -sources of income to the owners of the rentable properties. But as soon -as they cannot find a situation, cannot find employment, cannot find -work, cannot find a job, cannot borrow money, cannot pawn anything, -hence cannot pay rent at the well defined times, then they are gently or -ruthlessly kicked out of the rooms, and regarded as “no good,” as -degenerates. - -Expelling them from the tenement houses or farms, some gentlemen or -lady-proprietors sometimes even express sympathy or [SN: CANNOT HELP THE -SITUATION.] sorrow to lose their tenants; and sometimes they anticipate -further sufferings and privations for their unfortunate roomers, etc., -but cannot help them under the existing conditions. The expelled tenant -then wanders about, suffers privations, humiliations, till he falls into -prison, or she falls into prostitution, and into all the miseries of the -world. And it is only at the point where these propertyless lose their -real manhood and womanhood that they cease to be the sources of income -for the propertied. - -Now let us deal with the homeless and landless in the statistical -accounts, where the tenants and mortgagors are described together, but -with greater details in respect to the mortgagors than to the tenants. -For the sake of clearness, therefore, I must prominently represent here -the tenant families, as the propertyless, and must leave the mortgagor -families for the next chapter. - -The following census statistics represent only percentages of families -occupying farms and homes in the United States, while I have supplied -the figures implied in the relative percentages of these families. - - - STATISTICS OF THE TENANTS. - -“Extra Bulletin No. 98 of the United States Census, 1890, says: - -“There are 12,690,152 families in the United States, and of these -families 52.20 per cent,” or 6,624,259 families, “hire their farms or -homes, and 47.80 per cent own them.”[61] - -“In regard to the families occupying farms the [SN: FARM FAMILIES.] -conclusion is, that 34.08 per cent,” or 1,624,655 families, “hire, and -65.92[62] per cent own, the farms cultivated by them.” So that “among -every 100 farm families 34 hire their farms,” being landless. - -“The corresponding facts for the families occupying [SN: HOME FAMILIES.] -homes are, that 63.10 per cent,” i. e., 4,999,396 families “hire, and -36.90[62] per cent,” i. e., 2,923,560,[62] families, “own their homes.” -So that “in every 100 home families, on the average, 63 hire their -homes, and 37[63] own them.” - -“There are 420 cities and towns that have a population of 8,000 to -100,000, and in these cities [SN: CITIES 64.004 PER CENT. HIRE.] and -towns 64.04 per cent of the home-families hire and 35.96[63] per cent -own their homes.” So that in these cities and towns, 64 out of every 100 -families hire their homes, and 36 own them, or as the Bulletin states: -“in 100 home families, on the average, are found 64 that hire their -homes, and 36[63] own them.” - -Besides this, “the cities that have a population of 100,000 and over,” -i. e., cities up to millions, like Philadelphia, Chicago, New [SN: LARGE -CITIES 77.17 PER CENT. HIRE.] York and so on, “number 28, and in these -cities 77.17 per cent of the home families hire their homes and -22.83[63] per cent own them.” It follows, that in these large and very -populous cities of the United States more than 77 families out of every -100 are tenant families or those that hire their homes, and 23[63] own -them. Or, as the Bulletin says: “In these cities among 100 home -families, on the average, 77 hire and 23[63] own their homes.”[64] - -Now then, what this Extra Bulletin reveals to us is as follows: - -1. That in 1890 we had 1,624,655 families hiring farms. The difference -between hiring a farm and owning a farm is this, that an owner of a farm -reaps all the benefits [SN: NUMBER OF FAMILIES HIRING FARMS.] of his own -farm; whatever amount of energy he spends upon his farm, he obtains all -the results of it by himself and for himself, remaining all the time an -independent man. A farm tenant is just the contrary. He is a dependent -being and is a subject to dividogenesure. He works upon a rentable -property and must first of all satisfy the rightful owner of the farm. -He must divide the results of his labor between his master and himself, -by paying rent. And in order to be equally well off with the farmer that -works upon his own farm, the tenant must exert almost twice as much of -labor energy as the owner of a farm. But this is impossible. And this -impossibility rests upon all the tenants of farms. They are economic -slaves of their masters, slaves under the principle of dividogenesure. -If they don’t wish to divide the sole results of their labor, then they -must starve, and there is no other alternative for them, because they -are propertyless and hence resourceless. - -2. That at the same time we had 4,999,412 other families that were -hiring not the farms but rentable homes of the propertied men. And these -nearly [SN: NUMBER OF FAMILIES HIRING HOMES.] 5-million families were -not only the sources of income and profit in favor of the owners of the -homes, but also the sources of income for the employers that permit them -to labor. So that a farm tenant is a direct[65] source of income to one -lord of property; while a home tenant is a direct[66] source of income -for two owners of wealth. And a great injustice hangs on the neck of -every one of these millions, because they have no property of their own. -But the principal point is this, that neither one of them has the right -to expend or apply his labor energy anywhere without paying for it to -those that may not labor at all and live. - -Adding now the two classes of tenant families, we have 6,624,259 of -them; and regarding their [SN: NUMBERS COMBINED.] numbers individually, -we have 32,656,808 propertyless persons who are in bondage of -dividogenesure, because they have neither the right to expend their -strength nor to restore it without paying for both to the propertied. - -The question now is, Do these numbers show that we had “less than half -the families in the United States without property?”[67] Even without -examining the numbers of the propertyless in cities and towns, the Extra -Bulletin proves that there were 279,023 more of the propertyless -families than the half of the entire population. And [SN: COULD BUILD A -LARGE CITY.] this little more than the half represents 1,345,683 -propertyless individuals who could build and could inhabit yet another -one of the largest cities in the world, while under the unjust principle -of dividogenesure they have neither a farm, nor a lot, nor a single -house of their own. - -But what do you think about the whole number of the propertyless? We had -fully 32,656,808 individuals of them in 1890, according to this -Bulletin, and they could [SN: COULD BUILD 32 LARGE CITIES.] likewise -build and inhabit 32 great cities having in each more than a million of -good citizens. A million population in one city, as you know, -constitutes one of the most populous cities in the world; and we could -have thirty-two such cities in the possession of these now propertyless -people. These millions of people could make one of the finest nations on -earth with 32 of most populous cities which they could erect by their -labor energy. How is it, then, that they are obliged to remain homeless, -landless, propertyless, resourceless? Have they been lazy to work? Have -they been incapable of doing anything for themselves? Have they been -degenerates? No, no, these tens of millions have been working hard, but -they have been deprived of the results of their labor by the unjust -principle of dividogenesure that compelled them to labor for the few -families of the wealthy group of the two tables on p. 47, which own the -results of their labor and toil. - -And do you realize what it means to have 420 cities and towns with the -population of 8,000 to 100,000 individuals in each? Do you know what -[SN: CITIES BUILT BY LABORERS.] it means to have nearly seven-tenths of -their population without property, when they cannot exist without it? -And what it means to have 28 cities whose population is above 100,000, -and which goes up to millions in some of them; and yet nearly -four-fifths of their people are without homes, without property, and -without any resources of their own? And do you know that these very -cities (and towns) have almost all been built out of the realized labor -energy or on account of the results of labor of these slaves of -dividogenesure? - -And this is not all, for, according to the Bulletin, we had 32,656,808 -of the propertyless individuals, while the 2d R. table, p. 36, [SN: -COULD BUILD 33 GREAT CITIES.] which resulted from the 2d table on p. 32, -and which was published in 1897—this table authoritatively demands that -we should add 1,251,469 more propertyless people to the number found in -the Bulletin. This additional number of the propertyless could make yet -another one of the most populous cities in the world. And, being added -together, these people could inhabit not 32 but 33 cities, with the -total population of 33,908,277 individuals or nearly 34-millions of -souls. - -Imagine! The whole nation in 1865 was made [SN: WHOLE NATION OF 1865 -PROPERTYLESS IN 1890.] up of this number of people, whose wealth -aggregated over $24,000,000,000 worth. Now the principle of -dividogenesure required but 25 years to render the [SN: BY INCREASING -PROPERTY MEN LOST PROPERTY.] number of the propertyless equal to the -entire nation of 1865. Is it not an astonishing fact that while this -great number of the propertyless people grew up, the national wealth -actually increased by the worth of about $41,877,475,129? For in 1860 -the total aggregate of it was $16,159,616,068, whereas in 1890 it -aggregated to $65,037,091,197 worth of wealth. - -In view of these contrasting facts, can any one say that the 33-millions -of the property-losers were idle? or that the phenomenal increase of the -wealth was produced [SN: HUMAN ENERGY IS THE INITIAL OPERATOR IN -PRODUCTION.] by the very few owners of it because they had the most -effective capital at their own hands? No, sir, the capital itself is -dead in every respect and form, and not a single piece of it can produce -anything by itself. But, being effective aid, assistant in production, -capital only helps _the living human energy_ to increase the results of -its labor. And it follows that whatever the increase in production due -to mechanical forces or to other capital may be, it must be attributed -to the activity of human energy which manipulates all invented forms of -capital. And surely _the blessings of the various inventions_ consist in -the fact that the inventions _can aid the labor energy to produce more -wealth than it can produce without them_. Hence the real blessings of -the invented capital ought to have been preëminently in the fact of its -increasing the well-being of the millions of laborers in the various -grades of industry. - -How is it, then, that the wealth of the United States nation, from 1865 -to 1890, increased by more than 42-billion dollars worth, [SN: IS IT -LOGICALLY CORRECT OR MORALLY RIGHT?] while the well-being of its -producers greatly decreased? How is it that the tens of millions of the -workers not only could not obtain the due share of the wealth they -increased, but many millions of them in addition lost their own -properties? How is it that the great blessings of the inventors have -been changed into great curses against their well-being, because now -they appeared to be absolutely dependent for life on the wealthy few, -having nothing of their own? No explanations of minor causes can answer -these questions, but the great injustice of dividogenesure explains -them. - -But what can the propertyless people do when they increase and when all -the wealth and capital produced by the people are monopolized by a few -families, as even the 1st and 2d tables, p. 47, show the facts? What can -the 33,908,277 individuals without property do, when they have nothing -to hope for but labor under the principle of dividogenesure for the -wealthy few that consist of less than a million families in the enlarged -nation? - -It is evident that their fate condemns them to labor, as slaves, on -permission, and to satisfy first the demands of dividogenesure and -afterward take [SN: THE CLAIMS OF DIVIDOGENESURE REGARDED FIRST.] for -themselves what may be allowed from the results of their toil on the -rentable farms, while the millions of families which hire homes in the -448 cities and towns are still harder slaves of dividogenesure than the -families that hire their farms. They are harder slaves because they are -more liable to be freed even from the oppression of dividogenesure, and -liable to remain months and months in the sphere of starvation without -employment. - -Can there be a greater iniquity in the world than the iniquity that -proceeds from the abnormal system of dividogenesure? - -No! No nation in human history has seen an iniquity that can be compared -with the results of dividogenesure as they are at present, for it now -deprives men of their [SN: DIVIDOGENESURE IS A FOUNTAIN OF GREAT EVILS.] -fruits of toil to the utmost degree; it deprives them of their energy, -of their rights, and of their property; it deceives them by the medium -of exchange of commodities and products; it makes them economic slaves -of the very few masters or throws them out of the region of the slavery -into the region of resourceless starvation and degeneration; it -concentrates masses of the people’s wealth into a few hands, leaving -millions of families without income in despair and casts them out of the -rentable homes; it drags them into the courts, throws them into prisons, -drives them into penitentiaries, fits them for and chases them into the -lunatic and insane asylums. And not only this, but nearly all causes of -murders, of parricides, of infanticides, etc., and of the suicides -perpetrated by the people, can indirectly be traced to the abnormal -system of dividogenesure, which most fundamentally conditions almost all -national, social and private crimes, because sound life always depends -upon sound economic basis of a nation. - -The system of dividogenesure, however, is pernicious not only to the -tens of millions of the propertyless people alone, but it has [SN: IT -COMPRISES THE PROPERTIED EMPLOYEES.] enslaved millions of families that -have homes and have other little properties not bearing direct incomes -for subsistence. These families therefore are also compelled to be in -gainful pursuits under the same conditions with the landless and -homeless. And Mr. Carroll D. Wright, onesided and severely criticised, -wrote about some of them as the American bread-winners, as follows: - -“Bread-winners in 1870 engaged in supporting themselves were 12,505,923, -or 32.43 per cent” of the population. “The bread-winners in 1880 were -17,392,099, or 34.67 per cent of the total population” of that time. -“The bread-winners in 1890 were 22,735,661, or 36.31 per cent.” By -“bread-winners” he meant “wage earners, salary receivers ... or any one -who was engaged in gainful pursuit,” including “proprietors of whatever -grade or description, and all professional persons.”[68] - -I must here make a diversion to examine this author’s argument. - -For the purpose of proving that the poor, the producers of wealth, were -getting better off from 1870 to 1890 by their gainful pursuits, Mr. -Wright has placed in the [SN: MR. C. D. WRIGHT.] same class individuals -of incomparable description, and, by making averages upon equally -incomparable basis of their gains, logically arrived at the false -conclusion that the wages in general had risen during that period of -time. And hence, he added that “the rich are growing richer and the poor -are getting better off.” He thus arrived at the same nominal conclusion -at which Mr. Shearman has arrived in making nearly 56-millions of -individuals appear to be in possession of $209 each.[69] And it is -exactly in the same way Mr. Wright himself made the per capita wealth in -the United States, as a whole, amount to $1,036 for every inhabitant of -the nation. The rules of arithmetic are accurate in every calculation. -But the nominal distribution of wealth has never made the millions of -the people better off; and it has never altered the fact, that in 1890 -we had nearly 34-millions of them without property; and we had a little -over 7-millions of other individuals owning more than 55½-billion -dollars worth of wealth.[70] Whereas, at the same time, there were more -than 27-millions of individuals whose aggregate wealth was only -$825-millions, which is but $30 to each person.[71] - -This little diversion from our main thought once more testifies that the -increase of the 42-billion dollars worth of wealth which accrued from -1865 to 1890 did not in the least raise the wages of those producers of -the wealth who were compelled even to lose their own properties. On the -contrary, while the salaries and incomes of some professional persons -had decidedly increased, the wages in general had fallen, as we shall -see later on. Consequently, the tens of millions of the creators of that -wealth appeared to be all the worse off, as we have seen on pp. 85, 86. - -And when Mr. Wright adds “that the transportation has been so -perfected,” during the same time, “as to bring to the door of the [SN: -THE PROPERTYLESS HAVE NEITHER DOOR NOR WINDOW.] poor man and the rich -the results of industry of far away people” in order that they may buy -them from different monopolists; this sentence really sounds like a -mockery to the 34-millions of individuals who had in 1890 neither their -own door nor even window, and who were absolutely dependent upon chances -for a semi-income under the oppressive dividogenesure. - -But as to how many people were engaged in the gainful pursuits and how -many of them were entirely subject to the system of dividogenesure, we -can better know from the researches of Prof. Mayo Smith. He says as -follows: - -“Persons in gainful pursuits, United States 1890, by classes of -occupations, in ten years of age and over, were 47,413,559. Out of them -[SN: PROF. MAYO SMITH.] 24,352,659 were males and 23,060,900 were -females.” After this statement he innumerates their respective -occupations and adds “That 9,013,201 persons were in gainful pursuits in -agriculture, fisheries and mining, and that 8,333,692 of these last are -males and 679,509 are females.”[72] So that out of 62,622,250 -inhabitants of the country 47,413,559 individuals of 10 years of age and -upwards were engaged in the gainful pursuits. - -Now these nearly 47½-millions of persons in gainful pursuits could not -all be the slaves of dividogenesure. For some of these [SN: FAVORITES OF -DIVIDOGENESURE SPECULATE.] persons serve its favorites for very high -salaries and their services are well remunerated. Nor could this number -include many of the favorites of this unjust principle. For its real -favorites are those that possess extensive rights in natural and -artificial resources of wealth; they are those that earn their enormous -incomes even in their comfortable beds, by simply speculating on and -relying upon the energy and productivity of the subjects to -dividogenesure. And as the productivity of the American people is very -high, it therefore becomes as easy for them to grow very wealthy under -the favor of dividogenesure as for the millions of makers of their -fortunes to grow very poor and emaciated. - -Reviewing then the various occupations of the people in the United -States as these are represented by different authorities, we [SN: -1,000,000 FAMILIES AND 38,837,849 INDIVIDUALS.] have sufficient reason -to judge that since the year 1890 there have been about 38,837,849 -persons who may be regarded as positive slaves to dividogenesure on the -one hand. And there have been about one million families that were more -or less profited by their highly productive labor and skillful energy on -the other hand. The above number includes nearly all the homeless and -landless of the last census, and includes about six millions of those -who had their little homes and other properties of no importance. - -The productivity of these people may be exemplified by the following -reports: - -“Mr. Mulhall, in the ‘North American Review,’ for June, 1895, says: - -“An ordinary farm-hand in the United States raises as much grain as -three in England, four in France, five in Germany, or six in [SN: -PRODUCTIVITY OF FARMERS.] Austria, which shows what an enormous waste of -labor occurs in Europe, because farmers are not possessed of the same -mechanical appliances as in the United States.” (Enc. of Soc. Ref. p. -1093.) - -“Mr. Edward Atkinson gives the following statements on the industrial -productivity of the United States.” He says: - -“One thousand barrels of flour, the annual ration of 1,000 people, can -be placed in the city of New York from a point 1,700 or [SN: 7 PERSONS -SERVE 1,000 WITH BREAD.] 2,000 miles distant with the exertion of human -labor equivalent to that of only four men, working one year in -producing, milling and moving the wheat. It can then be baked and -distributed by the work of three more persons, so that seven persons -serve 1,000 with bread.”[73] - -“The average crop of wheat in the United States and Canada would give -one person in every 20 of the population of the globe a [SN: ENOUGH TO -FEED THE WORLD.] barrel of flour in each year, with enough to spare for -seed. The land capable of producing wheat is not occupied to anything -like one-twentieth of its extent. We can raise grain enough on a small -part of territory of the United States to feed the world.”[74] - -“The general conclusion at which I have arrived is that in the year -1880, the census year, [SN: GROSS INCOME IN YEAR 1880.] when the -population of the United States numbered a little over 50,000,000, the -annual product had a value of nearly, or quite $10,000,000,000 at points -of final consumption, including, at market prices, that portion which -was consumed upon the farm, but which was never sold. Omitting that -consumed upon the farm, it was about $9,000,000,000.”[75] - -“At an average of 200 pounds per head in the United States, the largest -consumption of iron of [SN: ONE OPERATOR SERVES HUNDREDS WITH GOODS.] -any nation, we may yet find that the equivalent of one man’s work for -one year, divided between the coal-mine, the iron-mine and the -iron-furnace, suffices for the supply of 500 persons. One operator in -the cotton factory makes cloth for 250; in the woolen factory for 300; -one modern cobbler (who is anything but a cobbler), working in a boot or -shoe factory, furnishes 1,000 men or more than 1,000 women with all the -boots and shoes they require for a year.”[76] - -These paragraphs sufficiently indicate the general capability of the -American people for production under the existing conditions. - -If an Austrian wine-producer or a farmer is six times less capable to -produce than an American farmer; and if this Austrian farmer [SN: -POVERTY IS IMPOSSIBLE.] can easily defray the multiple expenses of his -family and his own out of the results of his less capable labor and live -comfortably every year, the American farmer ought to have five times as -much of net profit from the results of his capable labor energy as the -Austrian farmer can spend every year for his living. So that, living in -the same way as the Austrian, the American farmer ought to be in six -years fully thirty times wealthier than an Austrian farmer of an -ordinary type. - -How is it then that the wealth of the sturdy American farm tenant -consists on the average of but $360 per family of nearly five members -each; while an Austrian farmer is incomparably better off, being almost -always a propertied man? - -And if seven American laborers are able to serve 1,000 persons with -bread and feed themselves every year, it is perfectly legitimate, then, -that every one of them should have a yearly profit of his labor, which -is equal to the value of bread, yearly consumed by nearly 143 men. And -this yearly profit must quickly make a considerable amount of wealth in -his store. - -How is it then that the millions of American producers of bread, each -supplying hundreds of [SN: POVERTY EXISTS.] persons, are obliged to live -from hand to mouth, having neither property nor land, nor any other -wealth in store for their future? And if their productivity testifies -that they are able to feed and clothe the world, as Mr. Atkinson very -reasonably affirms, is it not highly important to find out who profits -by their remarkably efficient labor energy? Or, who yearly devours the -surplus of their products, leaving them in poverty? - -Further, the work of one American miner, “for one year, divided between -the coal-mine, the iron-mine and the iron-furnace,” ultimately [SN: NO -ROOM FOR POVERTY.] “suffices for the supply of 500 persons” with the -metallic goods and utilities they consume in a year. “One operator in -the cotton factory can provide goods for 250, in the woolen factory for -300, in a boot or shoe factory for 1,000 men or more than 1,000 -women”—one worker in any of these industries, in one year, can work out -the respective goods these numbers of consumers require for a year, thus -showing that the productivity of every operator is simply phenomenal. - -How is it then that these very operators who can and do supply hundreds -and even thousands of consumers with different utilities [SN: YET -POVERTY EXISTS IN THE ABSENCE OF JUSTICE, ETC.] for living and enjoying, -are unable to support their own families for six months after they cease -to be in their exceedingly productive employment? And why are nearly all -of them homeless? Is it the essential and necessary demand of modern -ethics, that the more one produces the poorer one must be? Or is it -exactly the demand of modern justice that millions of human beings -should only toil and work for others, without having the right to work -for themselves and to partake of the fruits of their own labor? And -where is the court of justice to be found which can vindicate their -cause in view of their unusual productivity? - -Many consumers are convinced that these operators as well as all other -American laborers are always paid what they deserve, though they cannot -provide for [SN: ILL-BASED REASONING.] their future. Many other -consumers think that they could not be so productive if it were not for -the highly efficient aid of costly capital under their operations. And -as a logical inference, these consumers further think that this capital -must be highly paid for its own productivity. Hence the capitalist must -have a lion’s share from the results of the active energy of every -operator with the mechanical forces in production. And, although the -error of such reasoning is transparent from beginning to end, yet it -seems that justice itself is thus often satisfied. - -These reasoners seem to never ask, Whose energy is embodied in the -capital that the inventors have [SN: JUSTICE CLAIMS A DEEPER BASIS FOR -REASONING.] left as great blessing for working humanity? And whose -energy has realized, or rather materialized, the existing inventions -after they had been created in the minds of the great men? Has all this -been done by inanimate dollars or money, or by the same animate and -intelligent beings whom we now regard as the mere operators in every -sphere of human activity? Is it not their energy that flows like a river -into all things of utility? - -Then they say that the organizers, the managers, the superintendents -must be paid manifold for their superior work and intelligence. All -right, nobody denies that. - -But will you show me a single article in use, in existence, or an object -in the process toward use and existence, which does not represent the -energy [SN: THE WHOLE ARTISTIC WORLD IMPLIES EXPENDED HUMAN ENERGY.] of -the laborers in need of some of the necessaries of mere existence? Show -me a brick or a stone in its use, an iron-bar, a steel-rail, a machine -or an engine, a steamer or cable, or whatever you please, which has not -been washed with the sweat of the brow of their makers in need? Show me -that building, that palace or mansion, a house or home, which does not -directly imply, or does not testify of the energy of the propertied poor -and the homeless? - -Or show me that article, a heavy stone in a structure, a lump of iron or -coal, a coin of silver or gold, or show me anything in the world, which -should prove to have been only stained with the sweat of the brow of a -mere speculator in motions of values, in rentable farms and homes, or in -products of the workers in need? I am sure you cannot. - -While as facts I can show that the crystallized energy of the homeless, -the poor and the landless, in possession of others, floats on the -rivers, the seas and the oceans; it [SN: IT HAS NOT BEEN JUSTLY PAID -FOR.] fills up the land, builds up the towns and cities, heats them in -winter, lights them at night. In possession of others, their energy is -sold on the markets, and is laid in the stores and the banks of others. -Further, their energy stands in the forms of the plants and the -factories working in speed throughout the country; and it burns in the -stoves, in the furnace of the various works; it steams in the boilers -and moves the machines of its own making; and it pulls on the cables and -the cars upon the roads made by its muscle and bone. It crystallizes in -goods and all objects of use; it then moves on in masses upon the lines -of rails, and runs on from cities to cities, obeying speculators’ -commands. So, having been shaped into millions of different forms, and -having escaped from the working hands of its genuine owners, the energy -quickly changes into more and more durable forms; and after several -motions, it finally rests in the clean hands of the speculators, as if -it were their righteous net profit and wealth. - -Even this picture indicates the true basis where one should look for -justice and rights, for losses and profits. - -“The profits of the Wall street kings the past year were enormous,” says -Dr. Josiah Strong,[77] about January, 1880. “It is estimated that one of -them made $30,000,000; another, $15,000,000; two, $10,000,000 each; one, -$8,000,000; and four, from $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 each; making a grand -total for 10 or 12 estates of about $80,000,000”[77] in one year. - -While “Mr. F. C. Waite, special agent of the Eleventh Census, in charge -of True Wealth, makes the following statement as to the gross and net -earnings of important natural monopolies for the census year 1890.”[78] - - -----------------------------+---------------+------------- - Items. |Gross Earnings.|Net Earnings. - -----------------------------+---------------+------------- - RAILROADS: | | - From operation |$1,051,877,632 |} - Other sources | 126,767,064 |} - Unreported roads | |}$331,373,057 - (about) | 50,000,000 |} - Express companies[79] | 53,000,000 | 11,000,000 - Street railways | 90,000,000 | 28,000,000 - Water transportation | 191,000,000 | 31,000,000 - Telegraph companies | 25,000,000 | 7,000,000 - Telephone companies | 16,404,583 | 5,260,712 - INSURANCE COMPANIES: | | - Life | 90,000,000 | 59,000,000 - Fire, etc. | 54,991,613 | 19,000,000 - BANKS: | | - National | 144,614,053 | 72,055,564 - All others (estimated) | 200,000,000 | - ARTIFICIAL GAS | | - COMPANIES: | | - (Estimated) | 25,000,000 | - -----------------------------+---------------+------------- - Total earnings[80] | 2,118,654,945 | 553,689,333 - -----------------------------+---------------+------------- - -Now, these totals show what an enormous amount of the people’s -crystallized energy accrues to the monopolists in one year, and in every -year, besides covering all yearly expenses. No wonder, then, why we find -that the highly productive people, of which Mr. Atkinson speaks and -which could even in 1880 put upon the market, “at final points of -consumption,” the annual surplus of $9,000,000,000 worth of various -kinds of products, appeared in 1890 to be in possession of only about -$10,000,000,000 worth of aggregate wealth, belonging to more than -55-millions of individuals. Whereas, on the other side, there appeared -less than 7½-millions of individuals in possession of more than -$55,000,000,000 worth of wealth.[81] - -It is certainly understood that all products, while reaching the “points -of final consumption,” rise in their value, on account of the enormous -earnings derived from them by the speculators in the products of human -energy, while they move these products by the cheapest possible labor of -millions of employees, under the principle of dividogenesure. The rising -of their value is, of course, inevitable from beginning to end. For as -the raw materials, or the products of any kind, continue to acquire -their consumable state in the hands of the operators, more and more -energy is being spent upon them or added to them. And it is just and -meet that the persons who thus add their energy to the products should -be paid for it, whether engaged in the factory, in the plant, in -transportation or in the final distribution among consumers. - -Yet what do we find? We find that the 38,837,849[82] slaves of -dividogenesure, who work in the whole field of production and -distribution, are losing a great amount [SN: THEY LABOR FOR LESS THAN -THE DUE.] of their energy in favor of about one million[82] families -that employ them for less payment than these families finally derive -from the results of the labor energy of these employees. By “less -payment” I mean that net profit which is called the undue concentration -of the producers’ wealth in the employer’s hands; and I mean what is -absolutely due to the laborers and not what is undue. The facts of the -undue concentration of wealth in the hands of these few families will be -shown in chapter VI. - -If we now regard one million families of the wealthy group of one of the -tables[83] as the employers [SN: THE RATES OF INCOMES.] of the -38,837,849 propertyless and the propertied poor, the daily injustice of -the million families will be expressed in their daily incomes from every -individual as follows: - - Obtaining daily from each individual worker: - - 1c. they derive $ 388,378.48 - 2c. „ „ 776,756.96 - 3c. „ „ 1,165,135.44 - 4c. „ „ 1,553,513.92 - 5c. „ „ 1,941,892.40 - 6c. „ „ 2,330,270.88 - 7c. „ „ 2,718,649.36 - 8c. „ „ 3,107,027.84 - 9c. „ „ 3,495,406.32 - 10c. „ „ 3,883,784.80 - 11c. „ „ 4,272,163.28 - 12c. „ „ 4,660,541.76 - 15c. „ „ 5,825,677.20 - 20c. „ „ 7,767,569.60 - -So that, if only 20c is obtained from each of the propertyless and the -propertied poor in any employment whatever, then every one of the -million families on the average gets daily more than $7 of the unjust -income. And that is simply because the resourceless people cannot apply -their energy anywhere without oppression. But, if the principle of -dividogenesure allows these families to squeeze out of every one’s -energy daily 25c, then the daily dividend of these families will amount -to $9,709,462.25, which is nearly $10 to each family among the million. -And this is one way how the rich are growing richer and the poor are -growing poorer. While the next chapter will show another way of getting -rich and the poor. - -No one ought to suppose, however, that the million families, variously -employing the above number of the absolutely dependent people, obtain -equal shares of the [SN: THE LOSSES AND PROFITS ARE UNEQUAL.] unearned -profits from the workers in the United States. Nor ought one to suppose -that these workers lose equal amounts of energy in favor of the owners -of capital, means of transportation, or distribution of products, in -favor of landlords and houselords, etc. No, some of the workers lose -more than others, just as some of the families get much more than -others. The net profits of the different monopolies, p. 101, as -represented by the census agent, illustrate these differences in the -gains of several families connected with the monopolies. - -But, notwithstanding the differences in the detailed gains and losses, -there cannot be any doubt or discrepancy in the general fact, that if -“the natural” and other[84] “monopolies” shall continue to earn billions -of dollars worth of wealth every year, all the nation will soon be -absolutely enslaved by a very few families of the wealthiest type. The -economic slavery of the nation then will grow harder and harder upon the -people absolutely dependent on the principle of dividogenesure. - -For if each one of the 38,837,849 individuals now daily loses, on the -average, 25c worth of wealth produced by his energy, the continual [SN: -DEPENDENT INDIVIDUALS.] increase of these dependents must bring about a -continual increase in the rates of the daily incomes in favor of the -wealthy few—at the rates shown on p. 104, which shall then go higher up. -The concentration of wealth will go on, and from the standpoint of -dividogenesure, these rates will indicate a continual increase or -decrease in the unjust concentration of wealth in a few hands. - -No one must suppose, however, that by the rates of dividogenesure we -mean only the underrated wages and salaries. No, we mean here the losses -of the people in all stages of productive and distributive activity and -the final gains of those that unjustly profit by this general activity -of the people. And I view the nation as a whole with its future. - -If the situation be left, as it is at present, many possibilities can -unmistakably be predicted for the nation’s future. - -When the nation is rapidly growing into the economic slaves of a few -favorites of dividogenesure, there is no use to think about the freedom -and political power of [SN: POSSIBLE FUTURE.] the enslaved people, -because such thinking or talking will only be a general mock-flattery -against the helpless by the ignorant or dishonest men who may also be -slaves over the slaves. And this modern dependence of the people will -certainly be to their own harm. The tens of millions of families -together shall neither be able to support the public schools, colleges, -churches, nor any other public institutions without the means of the -wealthy few. Then it will be that the very teachers, professors, -ministers and every one else in the public service will also be in -bondage. Then it will be that they shall be bound to educate the people -by so shaping their nervous system as to bear even greater economic -slavery than any savages could tolerate. Then it will be that they shall -be unable to teach any truth valuable for the well-being of the people -even if they know it perfectly well.[85] And then it will be that every -one shall feel his impotency and littleness in attempting to throw off -the heavy yoke of the few rich families. - -Besides, we may see here a type of the Venetian Republic with all its -inherent miseries, on a large scale; while the people shall continue to -groan even as the Venetians did [SN: VENETIAN REPUBLIC.] under a few -prosperous families. But the American groaning and misery may -undoubtedly be even greater than theirs, because they were oppressed and -labored as beasts of burden, but they were never compelled to work on a -par with the modern mechanical forces. And as the misery of the American -Republic will be greater, the oppression heavier, and the economic and -other forms of slavery will be more degrading, it will be necessary to -have a greater Napoleon Bonaparte in order to liberate the future -Americans from their oligarchic plutocracy than the one who spoke to the -Venetians: “I am your liberator; I am not your enemy; I am your friend; -don’t be afraid,” and so on. - -It is, however, to be hoped that the present American fathers will not -hesitate to provide something better for their children. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - - MORTGAGOR FAMILIES. - - -It must be borne in mind that in this chapter we have to consider only -those families of the nation which were in possession of real or -artificial[86] property before and after the year 1890. And we have -especially to consider those of them whose properties were mortgaged; -and those whose properties were to be lost in consequence of the -mortgages they were encumbered with. While the propertyless or the -tenant families, that were treated in the preceding chapter, will now be -kept in the background of the statistics with which we have to deal. - -When, however, we are through with the statistics, we may make -references to and may even make special statements about the tenant -families treated before; while the prominent position will now be given -to the mortgagor families, showing how they fall from the class of -property owners, become debtors to the owners of greater wealth, lose -their properties and increase the numbers of the propertyless. - -It is important to note here that the loss of the rights to property -always precedes the actual loss of property itself; and that the fall of -the propertied into the sphere of dividogenesure, also precedes the -actual economic slavery of those that become propertyless. - -The very day in which a propertied person mortgages his property he -loses his rights for the wealth he has owned, because his property goes -from him as a security [SN: LOSS OF RIGHTS PRECEDES LOSS OF PROPERTY.] -for the loan he makes. And while losing the rights, he takes upon -himself the obligation to divide the results of his labor between the -lender and himself, and thus falls under the influence of -dividogenesure. For, henceforth, he spends his active energy in favor of -the creditor and himself, and is obliged to regard the interests of the -creditor as of more importance than his own. The rate of interest to the -creditor must be accurately paid so much per cent per annum for the -loan. Hence, the mortgagor at once appears in the position of a tenant -of farm or of any other property. And it depends on the rate of the -percentage he agreed to pay out of the results of his labor whether he -is better off or worse even than a mere tenant. It also depends on the -fact whether his mortgaged property is a large one or small, and whether -he has mortgaged one part or the whole of his resources of wealth. In -any way, a mortgagor, according to the degree of his indebtedness, is an -economic slave of the owners of greater wealth. And he must have a -supernatural ability and must use an extraordinary effort in order to -pay his debt or to redeem his property. Otherwise his property must pass -into the absolute ownership of the wealthy families that millions of -other individuals already labor for under the modern type of slavery. - -But let us now see the statistical facts and then we may better judge of -what mortgages signify and what they mean to the nation. We shall take -the other class treated in the same bulletin out of which we extracted -the 6,624,259 tenant families for the preceding chapter.[87] - - - STATISTICS.[88] - -“Extra Bulletin No. 98 of the United States Census, 1890,” (of the -mortgagor families) “says:” - -That out of the whole 4,767,179[89] farming families in the United -States only “65.92 per cent,” or 3,142,414 families “own the farms [SN: -FARM FAMILIES IN DEBT.] cultivated by them.” And “that 28.22 per cent,” -or 886,839 families out of the 3,142,414 owning ones, “own subject to -encumbrance,” i. e., they are in debt; “and 71.78 per cent,” or -2,255,575 families, “own free of encumbrance.” So that among every 100 -farm owning families 72[90] own without encumbrance and 28 own with -encumbrance. - -And the same Bulletin further says: That “on the owned farms there are -liens[91] amounting to $1,085,995,960, which is 35.55 per cent of the -value of the encumbered [SN: DEBT AT 7.07 PER CENT.] farms, and this -debt bears interest at the average rate of 7.07 per cent,” which is more -than 7 dollars for every $100 borrowed. It is at this rate per annum -that the farmer’s labor energy is drained by the wealthy creditors or by -the bankers. “Each owned and encumbered farm on the average is worth -$3,444.” This average, of course, includes the families far above $3,444 -worth and far below it—“and” each, on the average, “is subject to a debt -of $1,224.” - -Hence it follows that the principle of dividogenesure, in these cases, -has a yearly demand that every debtor should, on the average, pay about -$86.53 worth of the results [SN: INTEREST.] of his labor energy to his -creditor. And it is a question whether even a highly effective capital -worth $1,224 is really able to increase the yearly results of the -debtor’s labor to the extent of $86.53—I mean an increase in his product -absolutely due to the aid of the borrowed capital on which he is to pay -this sum as the annual interest charge. It is rather probable that the -majority of the mortgagors pay more than half of this annual percentage -at the expense of their personal energy, even under the condition of the -most effective use of the borrowed means. For the rate of 7.07 per cent -is unconscientiously exorbitant and is generally abnormal. - -As to the families owning homes, the corresponding facts are “that -27.70[92] per cent,” or 809,831 families, out of the 2,923,577 -home-owning families, “own their [SN: HOME FAMILIES IN DEBT.] homes with -encumbrance, and 72.30 per cent,” or 2,113,746, “own them without -encumbrance.” So that in every 100 home-owning families 28 are in debt -and 72 are free of debt. “The debt on owned homes aggregates -$1,046,953,603, or 39.77 per [SN: DEBT AT 6.23 PER CENT.] cent of the -value of the encumbered homes, and bears interest at the average rate of -6.23 per cent. An average debt of $1,293 encumbers each home, which has -an average value of $3,250.” This average again includes the family -homes worth far above and far below the indicated value. While the homes -below this value may have greater encumbrances than the others; and it -is certainly the poorer families that lose their properties first, if -they attempt to get rich by means of the loans they can obtain at the -rate of exorbitant per cents. - -If then the average debt of these 809,831 families is $1,293 and the -rate per cent for it is 6.23 per cent per annum, every one of them [SN: -AVERAGE OF INTEREST.] is, therefore, a subject to the principle of -dividogenesure at the rate of $80.55 a year. It must, however, he -understood that the averages indicate only the general truth, and always -conceal the particular miseries and distress of many millions of the -people. And I understand that many of these debtors have been in the -gainful pursuits spoken of by Mayo-Smith, and hence the dividogenesure -presses upon them from two or even more sides. But it is only the next -census that will show us the situation these debtors are in. - -Let us now speak about the cities and towns with one side of which we -have become acquainted in the preceding chapter. - - - CITIES AND TOWNS. - -“There are 420 cities and towns that have a population of 8,000 to -100,000, and in these “cities [SN: OWNERS OF THE CITIES FOUND AMONG -414,544 FAMILIES.] and towns 64.04 per cent,” i. e., 1,120,433 “of the -home families hire and 35.96 per cent,” i. e., 629,146 families “own -their homes, and of the home-owning families 34.11 per cent,” i. e., -214,602 “own with encumbrance and 65.89 per cent,” i. e., 414,544 “own -free of encumbrance. The liens on the owned homes are 39.55 per cent of -the value of those subject to lien. Several averages show that the rate -of interest is 6.29 per cent; value of each owned and encumbered home is -$3,447; lien on the same is $1,363.” (See Appendix I.) - -So that these debtors of the 420 towns and cities are also subject to -the principle of dividogenesure at the rate of $85.73 each per every -year, as long as the mortgages remain in force and are not foreclosed. - -“The cities that have a population of 100,000 and over” (up to millions) -“number 28, and in these cities 77.17 per cent,” i. e., [SN: OWNERS OF -THE LARGE CITIES FOUND AMONG 276,744 FAMILIES.] 1,503,911 “of the home -families hire and 22.83 per cent,” i. e., 444,923 “own their homes; -37.80 per cent,” i. e., 168,179 of the latter families have encumbrance -and 62.20 per cent,” i. e., 276,744 families are free of encumbrance. -Averages for owned and encumbered homes are: Encumbrance, $2,337; value, -$5,555; rate of interest, 5.75 per cent. Homes are encumbered for 42.07 -per cent of their value.” This is the largest average encumbrance among -all encumbered homes and farms. - -So that every debtor in these 28 large cities (and there are 9 of them -in every 100) is a subject to the principle of dividogenesure at the -rate of $134.37 each in every year as long as the mortgage is in force -and is not foreclosed. It is after the foreclosure that the debtor -cannot even redeem his mortgaged property; he has then to remain -propertyless. Let us now sum up the preceding conclusions in a tabular -way, as follows: - - United States Farms and Homes. - - ----------------------------------+----------+----------- - The Farm-Families. | Per Cent.| Number of - ----------------------------------+----------+----------- - The total of families occupying | | - farms | | 4,767,179 - | | - (1) out of them: The families | | - hiring farms | 34.08 | 1,624,765 - +----------+----------- - (2) and the families owning farms | 65.92 | 3,142,414 - | | - Out of the last 65.92 per cent. | | - of them are those owning farms | | - with encumbrance | 28.22 | =886,839= - | | - And those owning them free of | | - encumbrance | 71.78 |2,255,575 - ----------------------------------+----------+----------- - The Home-Families. | | - ----------------------------------+----------+----------- - The total of families occupying | | - homes | | 7,922,973 - | | - (1) out of them: The families | | - hiring homes | 63.10 | 4,999,396 - +----------+----------- - (2) and the families owning homes | 36.90 | 2,923,577 - | | - Out of the last 36.90 per cent. | | - of them are those owning homes | | - with encumbrance | 27.70[93]| =809,831= - | | - And those owning them free of | | - encumbrance | 72.30 | 2,113,746 - ----------------------------------+----------+----------- - Total of farm and home families | - with encumbrance | =1,696,670= - ---------------------------------------------+----------- - -This double table shows clearly enough that there were 8,320,831 tenant -and mortgagor families that have been subject to the principle of -dividogenesure. And [SN: SUBJECT TO DIVIDOGENESURE.] that these families -had 41,061,563 individual members, including children that have now -grown up to the same fate of the drain of labor energy, under which -their unfortunate parents have been. For all these individuals, of -course, cannot exist without working in favor of the few money lenders -and propertied men, because the tenants have no resources to apply their -energy to, and the mortgagors cannot profit themselves by the loans of -exorbitantly high per cent of interest. Hence, they are all drained and -all are economic slaves of the wealthy few. - -Besides, the necessary life-expenses of every one, subject to a strong -dividogenesure,[94] are absolutely greater than the same expenses of any -one in the wealthy group. While the incomes of the rich that the -millions of other individuals and the forces of capital work out, cannot -even be compared with the semi-incomes of the poor that are obliged in -any way to work for the wealthy, when these are disposed to give them a -chance to work. - -Further, is it not an abnormal reality that the 420 towns and cities in -the United States should belong [SN: CITIES OWNED BY LESS THAN 24 PER -CENT OF THEIR PEOPLE.] to less than 24 per cent of the entire population -in them? And is it not strange that the remaining 76 per cent of the -inhabitants in these cities and towns should live and labor with the -purpose of feeding, fattening and enriching these 24 per cents of the -people who are really the owners of these towns and cities? And is it -not abnormal in the extreme to have 28 cities, populated by hundreds of -thousands and by millions of individuals; and that these [SN: CITIES -OWNED BY LESS THAN 14 PER CENT OF THEIR PEOPLE.] cities, including all -kinds of buildings, machines, houses, etc., etc., should actually be -possessed by less than 14 per cent of their population? And that, in -addition to this extreme abnormity, the remaining 86 per cent of their -people should be obliged to divide all results of active and creative -energy with these few owners of the great cities? - -But what is inconceivably strange is that this extremely abnormal -situation should be produced in a nation governed by the people’s -representatives chosen by their good will and purpose; and that this -will and purpose should bring about the results of so great injustice -and wickedness against this people, is only possible on the basis of -ignorance, neglect of duty and selfishness. - -Let us now have an idea of the progress of development of the principle -of dividogenesure in the United States, and of the rapidity with which -the people fall under its oppressive influence, thus gradually becoming -propertyless or the absolutely helpless economic slaves of those that -capture them within the extensive nets of that principle. - - * * * * * - -“Extra Census Bulletin No. 71 gives the statistics on mortgages by -amounts, length of mortgage, rate of interest for the United States from -1880 to 1889.” - -It says: “That during that time 9,517,747 real estate mortgages, stating -amount of debt incurred, were made in the United States, representing -[SN: INCREASE OF MORTGAGES.] an incurred indebtedness of -$12,094,877,793. The number of mortgages made during one year[95] -increased from 643,143 in 1880 to 1,226,323 in 1889, or 90.88 per cent, -and the yearly incurred indebtedness increased from $710,888,504 in 1880 -to $1,752,568,274 in 1889, or 146.53 per cent.” - -“With regard to mortgages on acre-tracts, the number made during 10 -years was 4,747,078, representing an incurred indebtedness [SN: -ACRE-TRACTS.] of $4,896,771,112.” The increase in making them was as -follows: “The number of these mortgages made in” the year “1880 was -370,984; in 1889, 525,094.” So that during the years between these “an -increase of 41.54 per cent” was made; “while the incurred indebtedness -increased from $342,566,477 in 1880 to $585,729,719 in 1889, an increase -of 70.98 per cent. - -“The increase was relatively larger in the case of mortgages on lots. -They numbered 4,770,669 during the 10 years, and the indebtedness [SN: -ON LOTS.] incurred under them amounted to $7,198,106,681. From 1880 to -1889 the annual number made increased from 272,159 to 701,229, an -increase of 157.65 per cent. During the same time the amount of annual -indebtedness incurred increased from $368,322,027” in the year 1880, “to -$1,166,838,555” in the year 1889, “an increase of 216.80 per cent.”[96] - -As you see, the yearly increase in the numbers of making new mortgages -was astonishingly great on all sides. This progress of falling under the -influence of dividogenesure, falling into debt, indicates that the -people could not avoid becoming slaves to the percentages for loans. -This progress indicates that they were compelled by the generally -abnormal conditions of existence to take the risk of losing their -properties. And all cities thus grow as “New York City,” where “but 6⅓ -per cent of the families owned their homes”[97] in 1890. - - - “AMOUNTS:” - -“During the decade 622,855,091 acres were covered by 4,758,268 mortgages -stating and not stating the amount of indebtedness incurred under them. -The number of acres covered by mortgage in 1880 was 42,743,013; in 1889, -70,678,257; an increase of 65.36 per cent. In the case of lots covered -by mortgage the increase was 198.25 per cent. The number” thus “covered -by mortgages stating and not stating amount of indebtedness in the -former year being 429,955; in the latter year 1,282,334. - -“At the end of the decade, January 1, 1890, the [SN: ON ACRES AND LOTS.] -real estate mortgage indebtedness amounted to $6,010,670,985,” on the -whole, “represented by 4,777,698 mortgages,”[98] which were divided into -the mortgages on the acres and the mortgages on the lots. - -It was also computed that the average length of a mortgage in the United -States is longer than four and a half years, or exactly [SN: LIFE OF -MORTGAGE.] “4.660 years.” The Bulletin calls it a “life of a mortgage,” -which may last “as much longer without being paid off;” that is, a -mortgage may last as long as the creditor gets his rate of interest, or -as long as his increasing interest is secure in the whole value of the -mortgaged property. Otherwise a mortgage is foreclosed. - -But what is specially important for us is whether the mortgagors are -able to extinguish their debt with the same rapidity with which it was -incurred by them? If they are able to pay off their debts at the proper -times, then mortgaging of property would at least appear uninjurious to -their well being, though it could not be regarded as profitable to them. - -The same “Bulletin No. 71,” however, states that, “since mortgages in -force were made, 12.68 per [SN: ORIGINAL DEBT PAID: 12.68 PER CENT.] -cent of the original amount of indebtedness incurred under them has been -extinguished by partial payments.” Now, it was time to extinguish all -the original amount on mortgages in force. Yet 87.32 per cent of the -original indebtedness could not be paid off by the debtors. And this is -a sign of the [SN: ORIGINAL LOSS OF PROPERTY: 87.32 PER CENT.] most -forcible argument, showing that the greatest majority of the mortgagors -have been on the way to ruin, and on the way of losing their properties. -It is thus the millions of tenants appeared in 1890. - - - THE PER CAPITA DEBT. - -Instead of being paid off at proper times, the mortgage debt was -accumulating so far that if it were divided among the entire population -in 1890, every man, woman and child would have been in [SN: PROPORTIONS -ON STATES.] debt of $96. Just as the Bulletin says that “the mortgage -debt per capita in the United States is $96; the three largest state -averages (omitting the District of Columbia) are $268 in New York, $206 -in Colorado, and $200 in California. The smaller ones are found in the -south and the Rocky Mountain region.”[99] Such is the per capita debt in -these three States. - -“In 41 States 28.86 per cent of the taxed acres are covered by mortgages -in force. The largest proportion of mortgaged acres is in Kansas, where -60.32 per cent of the total number of taxed acres are mortgaged. -Nebraska stands next, with 54.73 per cent; South Dakota third, with -51.76 per cent.[99] - -“In the five States, Illinois, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South -Carolina, 23.99 per cent of the taxed lots are covered by mortgages in -force,”[99] and so on in the other States. But the most important fact -is the annual interest the people have to pay to the wealthy few for -their loans. - - - AVERAGE RATE PER CENT ON THE - DEBT. - -“The average rate for all mortgages in the United States is 6.60 per -cent. For mortgages on acres,” the average is “7.36 per cent; for -mortgage [SN: U. S. RATE PER CENT.] on lots, 6.16 per cent. These rates -make the annual interest charge on the existing real estate mortgage in -the United States amount to $397,442,792.”[100] - -Now we have reached the principle point in these statistics. Imagine -that the families in debt are annually charged with the rate of interest -amounting to $397,442,792 [SN: INTEREST CHARGE.] worth of the results of -their labor, and that the group of creditors get this amount of wealth -yearly without work. And think that, if the average life of a mortgage -is even 4½ years long, these families have to pay $1,788,492,564 worth -of wealth produced by their energy during this time. But we were told -that the average length of a mortgage life continues “as much longer -without being paid off,” that is, it lasts nearly 10 years, and these -families have, therefore, to pay nearly $4,000,000,000 worth of the -wealth produced by them during this time. That is how the debtors are -affected by the principle of dividogenesure which steadily works in all -directions in favor of the wealthy few. This is the economic slavery -that the Nineteenth Century has established for the people of the United -States. - -The Bulletin shows that this interest charge is for mortgages on -acre-tracts and on lots, against which the debt of $6,010,670,985 was in -force in 1890, after which it continued to exist and to increase -probably with the same rate as it increased in the previous decade. For, -nothing special has been done to prevent the needy people from -mortgaging their properties. So the mortgages were increasing and the -annual interest charge against lots and acres, too, continued to -increase. - -But the Extra Bulletin No. 98 shows that the indebtedness on owned farms -was equal to $1,085,995,960,[101] and the same on owned homes was equal -to $1,046,953,603;[102] [SN: INTEREST CHARGE ON FARMS AND HOMES.] so -that, added together, these two classes of debt amount to -$2,132,949,563, as was stated in this Bulletin. And the average rate of -interest on this debt is shown at the end of the second Bulletin to have -been 6.65 per cent per annum. And “the annual interest charge is -$141,910,106”[103] that has been a burden on 1,696,670 families -represented here in the table, p. 116. Of course, thousands of these -families have now lost their properties forever, as there were liens on -their farms and homes representing the above total of more than -2-billion dollars. - -If we now unite the annual interest charge on [SN: COMBINED INTEREST -CHARGE.] the acres and lots mortgage debt, and the annual interest on -farms and homes mortgage debt, we find that these charges amount to -$539,352,898 in every year, which must be paid in any way. - -It is certainly not the yearly charge of the memorial past, but it was -stated as existing in the year 1890, and would naturally continue as an -annual interest charge up to the present day. The debtors must use an -extraordinary effort in their toil, in order to get sufficient results -from their applied energy for clearing up this annual interest charge, -and keeping themselves alive.[104] And to speak about an unusual -prosperity of the people under such conditions is as absurd as to say -that the creditors are growing poor from receiving the annual interest -charge consisting of $539,352,898 worth of wealth because they get it -yearly without work. - -Yes, every one that speaks about prosperity in the United States knows -what he means. For the statistical facts prove that there is an unusual -prosperity for the very few that the tens of millions of individuals are -bound to work for. But, is it prosperity for these millions of the -propertyless * * * and debtors? No, there is positive enslavement for -them and their children. And it is the innocent children or posterity -that are to be specially pitied. - -These tens of millions of individuals become weaker and weaker consumers -of their own products and products of the nation. So that, the few -prosperous families are obliged to look after wider foreign markets to -export to the produce that the millions here have no means, no -purchasing power to acquire. It has long been the case in England, where -millions of the people wear overcoats, for instance, from 5 to 10 years -each, without being able to procure new ones; while the exports of all -goods are ever going on to the different foreign markets. And the -United States are growing similar to Great Britain in almost every -respect. * * * - -“The percentages representing encumbrance for various rates of -interest,” says the Extra Bulletin [SN: RATES OF INTEREST ARE HIGHER ON -THE POOR.] No. 71, “show that the larger encumbrances bear the lower -rates of interest, as a general fact.” And the differences in the rates -of interest are from “less than 6 to greater than 12 per cent.” Hence, -the poorer the mortgagors, the greater the weight of oppression they -bear; and the greater oppression they bear, the quicker they lose their -properties, and the greater becomes the number of tenants and of -economic slaves which we have. - -The brute-minded creditors think that it is natural to skin the -helpless, because they have no great security for the loans. - -What is the significance of mortgages for the nation? And what do other -men acquainted with mortgages think of them? - -The significance of mortgages has already been considered by many -thoughtful men, and it is not out of place to quote here the ready views -of some of them. - - - SIGNIFICANCE. - -As there are two economic classes of the people in the United -States,[105] so “there are two views, both of which must be understood.” -The [SN: SEMI-OPTIMISTIC VIEW.] view presented by writers like Mr. -Edward Atkinson is known to some people as worthy of regard, -notwithstanding that these writers knock their heads against a -mountainous wall of facts. “They argue that the mortgage is an -indication of prosperity.” Mr. Atkinson says, in the “Forum” for May, -1895, writing (before the complete mortgage returns given above had been -reported) concerning the census returns for 33 States: - -“The first startling fact is that in these 33 States and Territories -nearly 7,000,000 mortgages have been recorded in ten years for a total -sum of nearly $9,500,000,000. The final statement, covering the whole -country, which has not yet been published, discloses the fact that -9,517,747 mortgages were executed in the decade 1880-89 to the amount of -$12,094,877,793.”[106] * * * - -And then because “on the first of January, 1890, the amount of these -mortgages remaining unpaid in the whole United States was -$6,019,679,985,[107] Mr. Atkinson says: “It therefore appears that -during the decade one-half of the mortgage debt incurred had already -been paid.” But he forgets to deal with the process of losing property -by the thousands of the debtors who appeared without property in 1890. - -And being uncertain about mortgages on acres and lots at the beginning -of the last decade, he infers that “the least estimate of the sum due on -acres and lots at the beginning of this period (1880-90) would -be $1,500,000,000.” And continues that “these original mortgages -executed prior to 1880 must have been wholly liquidated, mostly by -payment.” * * * - -As regards this point we have equal or even greater reason to say that -those mortgages have mostly been liquidated by an absolute loss of -property, because at the end of the decade we have had many millions of -propertyless families. - -But the chief feature of the situation Mr. Atkinson wishes to vindicate -is that the mortgage growth indicates prosperity and not the system of -tenancy and landlordism as in Great Britain. He says: - -“The evidence is conclusive that the increase of hired farms does not -imply the permanent establishment [SN: AFRAID OF PRIMOGENITURE.] of the -relations of landlord and tenant after the English fashion. It does not -imply the concentration of land in fewer hands, but rather the reverse. -It does imply better and more intelligent methods of agriculture, larger -and more varied crops produced from lessening areas of land throughout -the whole great grain-growing section,”[108] and so on. - -As to the prosperity, I will say, that a family securing a large amount -of borrowed money or capital at low rates of interest may [SN: -CONDITIONS OF PROSPERITY.] prosper under mortgage by efficiently -applying the capital on its wealth, by efficiently applying the labor -energy of the family members, and, especially, by efficiently applying -hired labor upon its farm or any other kind of property. So that, only -those mortgagor families can have prosperity, which are aided by many -agencies in drawing incomes from their land. While all the poorer -families must be ruined by the mortgages. - -As to the argument that we have no establishment of tenancy after the -English fashion of primogeniture, it is enough to refer the reader to -the third chapter of this work, and beg him to understand it well by -reading a second time. For the effects of primogeniture and -dividogenesure are the same, as both principles demand that millions of -individuals should divide the sole results of their applied energy with -the few owners of capital and wealth, or else these millions must starve -without employment. They produce economic slavery in England and in the -United States, where most of the people are now propertyless and -therefore helpless. - -Dividogenesure, however, differs from primogeniture by including all -mortgagors into its sphere of oppression. - -And it seems to me perfectly naive to assert that “larger and more -varied crops are produced from lessening areas of land throughout [SN: -LOGIC QUEER.] the whole grain-growing section” of the country. For it -really means that the more land the people lose through mortgages, the -better crops they will produce, and hence the best crops must be -produced by them when they lose all the land they formerly owned. - -But Mr. Atkinson does not here deal with the fact that more than 64 per -cent of the population in 420 cities and towns, and 77 per cent of it in -the 28 largest cities are also tenants of homes, beside the tenants of -farms he writes about. He does not speak of the fact that the 420 cities -and towns actually belong to less than 24 per cent of their population, -and that the 28 great cities in the United States really belong to less -than 14 per cent of their population; and that the whole population of -the 448 cities and towns are bound, by dividogenesure, to work in one or -other way for the small per cent of their wealthy neighbors, the only -independent population that holds the others in slavery. A dealing with -these tenants would disprove his position. See appendix I. - -Mr. G. H. Holmes, writing in the “Annals of the American Academy and -Social Science Quarterly,” gives a more balanced view on the subject. He -says:[109] - -“While mortgage debtors must admit that they have done better to obtain -real estate on credit [SN: PINCHING EFFECTS.] than not to obtain as much -of it as they have done, or not to obtain it at all, they are -nevertheless in a situation where they feel the pinching effects of a -reduction or loss of income more than real-estate owners do who are not -debtors. This is owing to the interest that is wanted by the mortgagee.” - -While a still better view is given by Rev. Wm. Bliss, editor of the -Encyclopedia of Social Reform.[110] He says: - -“The mortgage indicates a hope of progress, but also a slavery to -interest under which many sink.” - -It is exactly the point of reality, for many propertied families borrow -money with the hope of getting economically better off, but the [SN: -DECEITFUL HOPES OF VERY MANY.] hopes mostly deceive them, and they find -themselves in the trap of slavery on account of paying too high rate of -interest for the loans they obtain. And it is this slavery to interest -that makes them absolutely propertyless, slaves to dividogenesure. - -And it follows that the claim of Mr. Atkinson, that mortgages are -profitable to both the mortgagor and the mortgagee is only true in the -cases of paying the rates of interest not exceeding 3 per cent per -annum, which, however, does not exist in America. And if this rate had -been in existence, then, an effective application of all possible -agencies of production could make the mortgages profitable to the -mortgagors and the mortgagees. While under the present conditions they -are only ruinous to the former and most profitable to the latter. - -But let us see the other view on mortgages which must be understood too. - -“The view that America is becoming a nation [SN: SEMI-PESSIMISTIC -VIEWS.] of tenants is well known,” says Mr. J. P. Dunn, Jr., writing in -the Political Science Quarterly for March, 1890, after describing the -situation as regards the Western States.[111] - - - “BURDEN OF DEBT.” - -“The mortgage indebtedness of the Western States is a matter worthy the -attention of economists [SN: MOUNTAINOUS AND IMMOVABLE.] and statesmen, -as well as of the people of those States. Whatever may be thought of its -effects, it is a fact—mountainous and immovable. And more, the -probabilities that loom far above the figures here presented make it -very questionable whether the alarmists who have discussed the subject -have in fact materially exaggerated the existing conditions. * * * - -“If the people of the Western States may be considered thrifty and -judicious, the people of Michigan may, and by the official records their -condition appears to be as bad as that of their neighbors in Indiana. In -1887 an attempt was made by the bureau of statistics to ascertain the -mortgage debt of the State through personal declarations of the owners -of land. * * * The returns show (report of 1888) that the real estate -mortgages of the State amount to $129,229,553, with an annual interest -payment of $9,451,851 on [SN: AN EXAMPLE OF FORECLOSURES.] a total -realty valuation of $686,614,741. Of this amount $64,392,580 is on -farms, and the annual interest charge is $4,636,265,” which the farms -pay out of their produce. “The number of foreclosures made during the -year was 1,667, and in only 131 cases were redemptions made, leaving a -net loss of 1,536 pieces of property by foreclosure in one year. The -situation apparently justifies the statement of Commissioner Heath that -a very large per cent of the people seem to be in a financial rut, and -are unable to extricate themselves.” - -Here you are. Mr. Dunn’s view is not an argument based upon an inference -from a guess, but on immovable facts of evidence which testify that the -State of Michigan [SN: LOSSES IN ADDITION TO LOSSES.] alone assists the -prosperity of the few wealthy families by the yearly contributions of -$9,451,851 worth of wealth produced by the labor energy of its debtors. -And that in addition to this contribution, the same debtors make a net -loss of 1,536 pieces of property by foreclosure in one year. That’s how -this civilized nation regulates the system of money-lending for helping -the people to live. And that’s how the civilized slavery is instituted. -It is by becoming mortgagors that the families pass from a bad degree of -slavery to a worse, until they lose all property, and become totally -helpless slaves of dividogenesure. - -But do not flatter yourself by thinking that this is only the fate of -Michigan. No, the people’s economic conditions are more or less similar -in all the States and Territories, and some States are much worse off -than Michigan, as the statistics show their situation. - -Mr. D. R. Goodloe, in the “Forum” for November, 1890 (not knowing yet -the facts of the East), says: - -“The conclusion from this melancholy array of facts is irresistible. The -virgin soil of the West is rapidly ceasing to be the home and [SN: A -CURSE OF HUMANITY.] the possession of the sturdy American freeman. He is -but a tenant at will, or a dependent upon the tender mercies of soulless -corporations and of absentee landlords. We have abolished monarchy, and -primogeniture, and church establishments supported by the State, yet the -universal curse of humanity, the monopoly of the earth by the wealthy -few, remains.” * * * - -And I can tell Mr. Goodloe that these few have monopolized, not only the -earth of the country, but also the hundreds of cities and towns, -together with their buildings, their capital, their natural and -artificial wealth, their houses, etc., etc., and the tens of millions of -the inhabitants of these towns and cities too, have been economically -enslaved, under the system of dividogenesure, to the same wealthy few. - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - - CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH IN MONOPOLIES, - ETC. - - -The first and the second chapters have revealed to us that, since the -year 1890, there have been nearly 34-millions of individuals without -property in the United States. The third chapter has shown that about -one-half the results of their labor must be expended for the necessary -support of existence, while the other half must go to enrich the owners -of rentable farms and homes for which these owners draw incomes from the -propertyless, without any labor or without any expenditure of their own -energy. Besides this, out of the more than 47-millions of individuals in -the gainful pursuits,[112] there must have been hundreds of thousands of -families who have small properties, like homes, but their members have -been obliged to support themselves by laboring under the same conditions -of dividogenesure as did the propertyless. - -If we admit then that there have been only 38,837,849 individuals in the -gainful pursuits absolutely under the principle [SN: DAILY INCOME FROM -THE POOR.] of dividogenesure, and that if one million families have -employed them in various ways, gaining 25 cents daily from each person -thus employed, the total daily income of these families would be -$9,709,462 per every day.[113] And if the labor year on an average, for -all, consists of 250 days, the yearly income of the million families -would amount to $2,327,365,500. This amount then would be yearly added -to the aggregate wealth of the fourth group of the 2d R. table, p. 47. -Though most of the income would go to only a few families among the -million. - -And if the mortgagor families continued to exist even without an -increase in their numbers—which is really impossible, for the mortgages -certainly must have increased—and continued to pay the annual [SN: -INCOME FROM THE DEBTORS.] interest charge at the rate of $539,352,898, -as has been stated on pp. 125, 126, then the yearly income of the -wealthy families in the 4th group of the 2d R. table must have been -still greater than what they could get from the propertyless alone on -the condition of giving them employment, and renting them the rentable -farms and homes. In fact, the direct and indirect profit in favor of the -wealthy few from the application of the labor energy of the above -millions of the economically enslaved would amount to $20,067,028,786 -worth of wealth during seven years. And what do we have? - -Mr. G. B. Waldron, continuing the estimates of the increase of wealth by -the Director of the Mint, from 1870 to 1897, has shown that by 1890 the -increase [SN: INCREASE OF WEALTH.] of wealth had reached -$65,037,091,197, as has been already stated in several places, while in -1897 the increase amounted to $86,825,000,000 worth.[114] So that an -addition of $21,787,908,803 worth of wealth has been made by the -people’s energy during seven years. Yet, with this enormous increase of -the wealth in seven years, listen! listen! to what the statisticians -said in 1897: - -“In the United States wealth has increased phenomenally; wages since -1873 have fallen (on account of too great supply of labor); the -concentration of capital has [SN: STATISTICAL CONCLUSIONS.] increased; -the number of the out of work has grown.”[115] Some men tried to -minimize the significance of these statements by proving the contrary -situation. Mr. Atkinson is one of those who said that “wages have risen -and prices fallen,” which view he entertained on the bases of government -reports. But all such arguments “have been shown in the article ‘Wages’ -of Enc. of Soc. Reform, to be false.”[116] And Prof. Mayo Smith has -disproved all attempts of these men to show that the wages have risen, -on the whole, by showing the falsehood of the averages such men -represented in their arguments.[117] - -Further, the fundamental doctrine of wages in economics is that the -rates of wages depend principally on the efficiency of labor and [SN: -THE ECONOMIC DOCTRINE OF THE RATE OF WAGES.] on supply and demand of -labor. That is, if the efficiency of the laborers is high, the wages can -be high, and if the demand is great and the number of the laborers -small, the wages are again high; but if the demand for laborers is -small, and the supply is large, the wages must naturally be low, whether -the efficiency of the laborers is high or low. - -The wages in the United States since 1873, on the whole, have gradually -fallen, but not so low as they ought to have done. For, as [SN: WAGES -WOULD BE TWICE AS LOW.] the propertyless people have increased in -numbers up to tens of millions, the wages should have fallen twice as -low, otherwise only half the employees at a time should have employment, -because of the over-supply of laborers. But, since the trade-unions have -been organized, the wages have artificially been kept up (for the -employed) by these organizations, and by the employers themselves to -some extent. - -“A trade union,” says Mr. Webb, “is a continuous association of -wage-earners for the purpose of maintaining or improving the conditions -of their employment.[118] The chief object of it is to elevate the -social position [SN: WAGES ARTIFICIALLY KEPT UP.] of its members. * * * -It is a union of individual forces in order to compete against the undue -and unfair encroachments of capital into the continuance of the -established well-being of the united individuals.”[119] Hence, “the -trade unions wish to keep up the rates of wages, and to prevent a -laborer from accepting employment, under stress of starvation, on terms -which in its common judgment would be injurious to the union’s -interests. And they would rather encourage idleness than cheap labor. -Such idea existed with them since the beginning, or when it originated. -This idea originated in 1741,” says Mr. Webb,[119] “but the special -enforcing of it commenced at the beginning of the eighteenth century.” -* * * And surely many an employer knows very well what the “Strike in -Detail” of the trade unions under this enforcing means. - -The trade unions have used all the means in their power for the purpose -of holding up the wages. But, if the wages have fallen notwithstanding -the artificial support, their falling testifies to the presence of a -mightier force pressing them down. - -In 1896 it was said that, “according to the last volume of the -Connecticut Labor Report and the Massachusetts Statistics of -Manufactures, the nominal rate of wages in [SN: GROSS INCOMES OF WORKERS -DECREASED.] 1894 had declined 7 per cent below the level of 1892, while -the yearly incomes of laborers had been still farther reduced by the -lack of employment.” The Connecticut Report testifies that wages for the -same period fell about 10 per cent, and it says that “the heavy losses -of the wage-earners, however, came not from reduced pay, but from -reduced employment, and that the reduction in pay and in the employment -had decreased the total wage-payments 25 per cent.” And “the great mass -of families in Connecticut had had their incomes reduced one-fourth,” -says Dr. Spahr.[120] So that, in Connecticut and Massachusetts, -together, “the family incomes of the laborers between 1892 and 1894 fell -at least 20 per cent. In Pennsylvania they fell 24 per cent. The fall of -wages in agriculture from 1890 to 1894 reduced the incomes of laborers -to the extent of 20 per cent.”[121] And the rents of houses, on the -whole, have risen against the homeless. - -It is not necessary to multiply the same examples in the remaining -States, since we know that the supply of labor has increased throughout -in the United States; and since we know that the demand for labor has -proportionately decreased. And, consequently, the wages in general must -have fallen according to the fundamental principles of economics, -because of the increase of population without property and without -resources. - -Now then, if the incomes of, say, 40-millions of individuals in the -gainful pursuits, have on the whole been reduced; and all these [SN: WHO -PROFITS BY THE INCREASE OF WEALTH?] millions of people have been made -worse off, we have the right to ask: Who was profited by the phenomenal -increase of wealth during the period of the seven years? In other words: -Who had obtained the amount of $21,787,908,803 worth, the increase of -wealth up to 1897? Is it the group of tenants, or the group of -mortgagors? or is it the group of owners of free farms and homes worth -$5,000 and under, as they are represented in the 2d R. table, p. 47? And -was it possible for all these highly productive families to retain a -goodly share of this phenomenal increase of the wealth? - -The above total of the increased wealth, divided by the 7 years, gives, -on the average, an increase of $3,112,558,400 every year. It being, of -course, understood that this average was smaller in the year 1891, and -augmenting year by year, it became largest in the year 1897. And this -augmenting necessitates a progressive increase in the business of all -monopolies, trusts and combinations, highly increasing the gross and the -net incomes of all. - - - THE TOTAL ITEMS OF THE CONCENTRATION - OF WEALTH. - -Let us then sum up the net earnings of the natural monopolies alone, as -they are given on p. 101, leaving out their necessary increase [SN: -PROFITS OF NATURAL MONOPOLIES.] consequent upon the unavoidable growth -of business in their favor during the seven years. The net earnings of -$563,689,333 by these monopolies in every year amount to $3,945,825,331 -worth of wealth in seven years. This is one item of positive loss by -tens of millions of the people in favor of a few families, connected -with the monopolies. - -Another item of similar earnings, we have seen on pp. 125, 126, consists -of the annual interest charge, equal to $539,352,898, from the results -of labor of the mortgagor [SN: PROFITS OF MORTGAGEE MONOPOLIES.] -families, who are compelled to lose this amount of their substance -yearly in consequence of the abnormal distribution of wealth in general. -And, as there is no reason to suppose that mortgages were not increasing -in their numbers, and the mortgagor families were not losing their -properties by foreclosure, so there is no reason whatever to suppose -that the above annual interest charge against mortgages, on the whole, -had diminished up to 1897. Hence, we consider that the above annual -interest charge continued to be paid at least as it was paid in 1890. -For, in order to diminish it or to stop its ruinous effects, some -important reform must be accomplished, which, however, has not been -done. - -The annual interest charge of $539,352,898, against the private -family-mortgages, in seven years amounts to $3,775,470,286 worth of -wealth or of the products of the mortgagor families, lost during the -period in favor of group 4 of the 2d table (p. 45 or 47). This amount is -in addition to “the net earnings of $3,945,825,331, which accrued to the -same group of families in the table. - -Further, we have seen in the lower table, p. 116, that there were -4,999,396 families that hire their homes, because being homeless. [SN: -MONOPOLIZERS OF RENTABLE HOMES.] And this number of the homeless must be -augmented by 246,938 families, found in the group of the “tenants of -farms and homes,” which are represented by the author of the same 2d -table to be so many more than the lower and upper tables, p. 116, -contain of the tenant families. We have therefore to deal with 5,246,334 -families that hire their homes[122] mainly in the 448 cities and towns -we have spoken about on pp. 81, 114-15, 132. For it is they that find -shelter in the rentable houses of these cities, towns, etc., by paying -rents. And our problem is to find the amount of rent they paid to the -owners of these houses. - -An example of average monthly rentals may here be presented for Boston, -as follows: - - Monthly rentals under $5 average $4 - From $5 to $10 average 8 - From $10 to $15 average 12½ - From $15 to $20 average 16⅔ - From $20 to $25 average 22[123] - -These averages may be too small for many cities and too large for the -whole United States. But if we take the general average for all [SN: PER -FAMILY HOUSE RENT.] families at $9.50 a month, it will probably be -little below,[124] but cannot be above the true one. In fact, if every -family of 4.93 members paid an average of $9.50 of monthly rent, it -would indicate only the net income in favor of the owners of the -rentable houses, and absolute losses on the side of the homeless. - -Now then, by paying $9.50 a month each, the 5,246,334 homeless families -paid $598,082,076 rent in one year. And by paying the same amount seven -years, without regarding the increase of families, they paid -$4,186,574,532 worth of their energy, as an unavoidable tribute to those -that speculate in their comfortable beds, while performing every action -by the hired labor of agents and building new houses by hired laborers. - -Furthermore, we have seen in the upper table, p. 116, that there were -other 1,624,765 families that hire their farms, because being landless. - -If we regard the average tenements of these families at 136 acres of -land per family,[125] we shall [SN: MONOPOLIES OF RENTABLE LANDS.] find -that the 1,624,765 tenant families held about 220,968,040 acres of land -every year. Although this general average for all farmers in the United -States may be a little too small for the tenant families, because their -acreage increases much more rapidly than that of the families owning -their farms, as we shall soon see, yet we shall consider this average as -it is given. - -As to the average rent per acre of the farming land for the United -States, the general average was $2.81 for wheat and $3.03 for corn -raising lands.[126] - -Supposing, however, that many farm tenants hold the grazing and other -less valued lands, let us even admit that the general average rent per -acre was only $2.75 for all lands hired by these tenants. - -By paying then $2.75 of rent per acre, the 1,624,765 tenant families -paid $607,662,110 in one year for the 220,968,040 acres of land [SN: THE -PROFITS OF LAND MONOPOLIES.] that does not belong to them. And by paying -the same amount seven years—from 1891 to 1897 inclusive—they paid -$4,253,634,770 worth of wealth to a number of the speculators upon land -and upon the energy of the farmers who are the slaves of dividogenesure. -It follows that every farming family of this group, on the average, paid -about $374 for the land alone. - -It seems, however, that there are many farm tenants that pay separate -rents for the farm houses. And in the year 1890 these paid [SN: HOUSE -RENT ON FARMS.] the total of $140,000,000 of the house rent, says Dr. C. -B. Spahr.[127] By paying this rent seven years they paid an additional -amount of $980,000,000 worth of their crystallized energy. Including -this total into the general total of house rents, let us now sum up the -above losses of the productive people, which are the gains of the few -monopolists and speculators for the seven years as follows in the 1st -table of concentration of wealth on the next page: - - 1st Table of Concentration of Wealth. - - -----------------------------------+------------------ - Monopolies and Combinations. |Total Net Incomes. - -----------------------------------+------------------ - The natural monopolies[128] |$ 3,945,825,331 - Mortgagee monopolies[128] | 3,775,470,286 - Companies, etc. of rentable houses | 5,166,574,532 - Monopolies of rentable lands | 4,253,634,770 - -----------------------------------+------------------ - Grand total |$17,141,504,919 - -----------------------------------+------------------ - -Even this grand total indicates that a nation of thirty millions of -individuals would be rich by it, yet it does not include many other net -incomes. - -Besides these certain facts, the highest rentals derived from the -offices, hotels, and other rentable properties found in the central -parts of the cities above and below 100,000 population are to be -ascertained. And no one will doubt that the comparatively very few -owners of these city-centers must have collectively drawn a greater -amount of the net incomes from rent, than can be expressed by three -billion dollars’ worth of wealth, derived without work by the few owners -of the most valuable parts, especially of the 28 cities far above -100,000 population. - -Further, we have not treated the net earnings of the companies and -combinations filling up the large storehouses of the wholesale and -retail business in the same great cities, which distribute the -industrial products of the people, for consumption at home and abroad. -And while the distribution of these products is carried on by cheap -laborers, we have not represented here the few monopolists that grow -into multi-millionaires behind the busy work of the distribution. The -net incomes of these will be included into the incomes of the -Manufacture and Mechanical Trades hereafter. - -But further still, we entirely omit the indication of the net earnings -of “the meat companies” in the large cities, like those of the Chicago -stockyards, “the cattle companies, [SN: THE TRUSTS’ NET INCOMES -OMITTED.] uniting more than $100,000,000; combinations of the millions, -invested in the elevators of the Northwest against the wheat-growers; in -whiskey and beer about $100,000,000; in sugar, $75,000,000; in leather -over $100,000,000 (1894). The trust of piano-makers was to have a -capital of $50,000,000, and there is the Cordage Trust that gets from 40 -to 50 per cent on its capital; the Cotton Seed Oil Trust and Lard Trust” -and others.[129] - -Finally, we have not treated the earnings of some other well-known -monopolies, trusts and combinations, which have, as all the others, been -established with no other purpose or end in view than to draw from the -productive people all they can for themselves by means of speculation. -For, drawing wealth by combined speculation is the easiest thing in the -world for those who were enabled to make its beginning. - -Omitting the above trusts and combinations, because of the uncertainty -of their net earnings, we have positive means to find out the [SN: -OWNERS OF THE CENTRAL PARTS OF THE CITIES.] highest rentals of all -central parts of the cities and towns spoken of before. In estimating -the total income of the nation for the year 1890, Dr. Spahr found that -“the total income from house and office rents, as estimated in the text” -(his text) “is one-seventh of the total income of the non-agricultural -population.”[130] And the total income of the latter population was -$8,200,000,000,[131] one-seventh of which is equal to $1,171,428,571 -3-7—apart from the agricultural land rents. This one-seventh, then, paid -seven times in seven years, amounted to the same $8,200,000,000, which -amount shows that the owners of the central parts of the cities and -towns obtained at least $3,033,425,468 rent from their properties. - -It does not, however, make a difference whether we accept the whole -amount of rent estimated by Dr. Spahr or simply add the three billions -and over to our grand total, p. 150. In any way, these facts indicate -that the wealth has concentrated with the very families that were -enormously wealthy in 1890 and appeared to be much wealthier in 1897. - -Yet the concentration of wealth is not only very rapid in drawing the -wealth of all the 11,190,152 families worth $5,000 and under[132] to -[SN: CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH IN HIGHER SPHERES.] a very few families of -the 4th group in the 2d table,[133] but it is also rapid among the -families worth $5,000 and over,[134] so that all are crushed by the -monopolies, the trusts and combinations. In order to illustrate it, I -here quote the same authority that estimated the increase of the wealth -from 1890 to 1897 before making a conclusion from the foregoing, -respecting industries, as follows: - -“As to development of ‘the’ trusts before 1890,” Mr. G. B. Waldron says: - -“Of the manufacturing and mechanical industries, whose statistics were -returned in the census [SN: TRUSTS IN INDUSTRIES.] of 1890, there are 43 -whose manufactured product for the year 1889 was about $30,000,000, -whose capital averaged above $10,000 per establishment, and which -admitted of comparison with the census of 1880. Of these 43 industries -we have chosen 30 as especially illustrating the growing concentration -of capital during the 10 years from 1880 to 1890. - -“It is a significant fact that while in 1880 these industries were -carried on by 84,708 establishments, or about 33 per cent of the total -number of manufacturing establishments of the country, the same -industries in 1890 were carried on by only 69,659 establishments, or -about 22 per cent of the total establishments, and fewer in number by -over 15,000 than in 1880. - -“The value of the total product of these 30 industries in 1880 was -$3,125,915,574, or 58 per cent of the total manufacturing products of -the country. In 1890 these same industries produced products to the -value of $4,595,804,626, or about 51 per cent of the total product. - -“The concentration of capital in these 30 industries is shown from the -fact that in 1880 their total capital was $1,735,577,540, or an average -of $20,489 per establishment, while in 1890 their total capital reached -$3,468,277,249, or $49,789 per establishment, a gain of 143 per cent in -10 years. There has been a similar concentration of employees in these -industries. In 1880 the 84,708 establishments used 1,340,490 employees, -or an average of 16 to an establishment. In 1890 there were 1,964,232 -employees in these industries, or an average of 28 to an -establishment.”[135] - -This is a separate and an additional item of the concentration of wealth -which undoubtedly continued—from 1890 to 1897—to farther aggravate the -general situation, shown by the grand total of the net incomes in favor -of monopolies, on p. 150, beside the uncertain ones. - -For the 30 different industries, taken out of the 43, have perhaps -forever supplanted 15,049 factories and other establishments in ten -years. During the same time the supplanters did much more than double -their own capital. In fact the increase in the capital of these -supplanters reached the amount of $1,732,699,709 over the capital they -had in 1880. - -But, if Mr. Waldron would investigate the same facts in the total number -of industries, he could probably show us that the supplanting of -different establishments reached at least 21,586, and that the increase -of capital reached over two billion dollars’ worth with the fewer -supplanters. That is, if the above rate of concentration of the capital -were the same, as it must have been, throughout the industrial -operations in the entire country. - -And while there was also the concentration of the employees, we know -that, with the astonishing increase of the capital in favor of the -supplanting trusts, the wages of these employees have fallen,[136] -notwithstanding that their highly productive labor enormously increased -the capital of the fewer employers. - -As regards the fall of wages in all the manufacturing industries since -1890, it will not be out of place to state here the minimum injury -thereby sustained by the employees in the seven years under our -consideration. - -When all the available data of the Eleventh Census were published, Dr. -Spahr started to estimate the total income of the nation for the year -1890. In estimating it he found out that the total income of the -manufacture and mechanical trades alone amounted to $2,790,000,000, -including their net profits of $1,116,000,000 for the year. The total -number of persons engaged in these trades was 5,091,000, of whom -4,650,000 were wage-earners, while the remaining 441,000 were officers, -firm members and clerks. Disregarding these, the average of actual wages -of the wage-earners for the year was $360. After that year these meager -wages, by reduction and unemployment, “had decreased 25 per cent,” says -Dr. Spahr.[137] - -But if we regard the average reduction of these wages at 10 cents a day -only, and the average labor year at 250 days, leaving thus [SN: SPECIAL -LOSSES OF THE WAGE-EARNERS.] a sufficient room for unemployment, we then -find that the 4,650,000 wage-earners were losing $116,250,000 every -year. And distributing the same losses over seven years, they have lost -$813,750,000 worth of their energy in favor of the trusts and -combinations. The losses, however, have been greater than this amount, -although we consider only this minimum, which is simply an increase in -the injustice brought about by the principle of dividogenesure. - -But while the real producers of wealth thus constantly lose their energy -in products, the net profits of the trusts of these industries for the -year 1890 amounted to $1,116,000,000.[138] This great yearly income [SN: -NET INCOMES OF THE TRUSTS.] excludes all expenses, and excludes even the -yearly waste of machinery, tools, and of the other capital used in -operations. Obtaining such profits seven times in seven years, these -trusts have profited themselves by about $7,812,000,000. And these -enormous profits accrued to them for nothing more than the trouble of -buying the machinery and other capital that the real producers of wealth -operated upon, mostly under hired supervision. And while the human and -mechanical forces work out these results, the real beneficiaries do -nothing but speculate on the ways of concentrating the entire increase -of wealth to their hands. - -The speculative efficiency of these trusts and the profound injustice of -it will be more apparent, if we remember that these profits do, not only -imply the systematic extortion of the crystallized energy of the real -producers of wealth by means of exorbitancy in dividogenesure, but they -imply a similar extortion from the public at large, which consume the -products of these industries for excessive payments. - -The question of the “excess of selling price over the cost of -production” in these industries has been well ascertained. A cost of -production according to economists, implies [SN: COST OF PRODUCTION.] -cost of materials used; salaries, wages, rent, taxes, insurance, repairs -paid; waste of machinery, instruments, and of other capital valued; in -short, it implies all expenses, including reasonable percentage on stock -and reasonable remuneration for the troubles of capitalists and -entrepreneurs. And all these expenses must be collected by means of -selling prices from consumers of the products. While what is -unreasonable in such prices under ordinary circumstances is called an -“excess of selling price over the cost of production.” This excess was -raised by the trusts up to 12.95 per cent in 1890.[139] - -If then we take the selling prices even of the total profits of -$1,116,000,000 of the manufacture and mechanical trades for the year -1890,[140] and subtract this excess from [SN: EXTORTION FROM THE -PUBLIC.] it, we find that the excess amounted to $144,522,000 in one -year. Admitting that the above percentage sustained some fluctuations, -we cannot but think that, with the increasing activity in combinations -of the trusts, this percentage of the excess must have increased soon -after that year. So that the average of it, from 1891 to 1897 inclusive, -must have been carried on by the trusts in different ways and means. If -so, then they must have exacted from the consuming public fully -$1,011,654,000 worth of its wealth, as an excess of selling price over -the cost of production of the goods consumed. This loss of the public -wealth, of course, does not exclude the losses of the families worth -$5,000 and over; nor does it include any relation to exports of the -products of these trades. The loss simply indicates an extortion from -the public by perverted morality and profound selfishness of the -combines. - -The next item in the concentration of wealth has been drawn from the -agricultural regions. - -It has been estimated that the wages and earnings of all farmers from -1890 to 1895 have fallen over 20 per cent;[141] and that 8,497,000 -persons engaged in agriculture [SN: SPECIAL LOSSES OF THE FARMERS.] have -suffered from the fall, according to the estimates of Dr. Spahr,[142] -which he based upon various reports. If, however, we admit only 10 cents -of this loss from every person, every labor day, in favor of the various -monopolies, trusts and combinations which use the raw materials and -transport the agricultural materials and products, we find that in about -266 working days in one year the above people lost $226,020,200 worth of -their products. Distributing these losses equally over seven years we -find that these people have lost and the monopolies, etc., have gained -about $1,582,141,400 worth of their wealth for nothing. And this is only -the minimum loss that was carried throughout the period of seven years, -as constant drain. - -Another item of similar losses is represented by the 350,000 miners -whose wages since 1890 have fallen “exceptionally low.”[143] So that it -would be perfectly safe to regard [SN: SPECIAL LOSSES OF THE MINERS.] -the average fall in their daily wages at 15 cents, and the labor year at -266 days, allowing again for a possible unemployment. This being so, -they have lost about $13,965,000 in one year. And as their average wages -did not really rise again during the period under consideration, they -must, therefore, have lost about $97,755,000 worth of their labor energy -in favor of the mining trusts and monopolies. While the profits of these -monopolies in 1890 amounted to $80,000,000,[143] when the total income -was $210,000,000 which we leave out of further consideration. [SN: -PROFITS OF THE MINING MONOPOLIES.] The $80,000,000 profits must -naturally have increased with these monopolies. But even if repeated as -they were in that year, they must have amounted to $560,000,000 during -the seven years. Considering the excess of selling price over the cost -of production here at the rate of 12.95 per cent, this amount of net -profits includes $72,520,000 worth of the public losses, of -unjustifiable extortion. - -Beside all this, I find the telephone and telegraph monopolies[144] had -an increase of $229,624,566, and the railroad monopolies[144] of -$80,377,053 in their net earnings over and above the amount on pp. 101, -150. The same course is true of many other monopolies and combinations. - -And as Henry B. Brown, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme -Court, in an address at the Yale Law School, June 24, 1895, said: - -“If no student can light his lamp without paying to one company; if no -housekeeper can buy a pound of meat or of sugar without [SN: ALL -PRODUCTS ABSORBED BY COMBINATIONS.] swelling the receipts of two or -three all pervading trusts, what is to prevent the entire productive -industry of the country becoming ultimately absorbed by a hundred -gigantic corporations?”[145] The foregoing facts clearly show that the -corporations, whether under boards of trustees or under directors of -monopolies, with the principle of dividogenesure do, not only absorb the -entire mass of products of the people, but absorb even the wealth that -was formerly produced and now being gradually lost. - -But let us now turn to the meaning of the increase of the population in -connection with the preceding facts and estimates for the seven years. -The table on the next page shows it. - - Increase of Population. - - +----------------------+-----------++----------------------+-----------+ - | Years. Individuals. | Percents || Years. Individuals. | Percents | - | | in Cities.|| | in Cities.| - +----------------------+-----------++----------------------+-----------+ - | 1790 3,929,214 | 3.35 || 1850 23,191,897 | 12.49 | - | 1800 5,308,463 | 3.97 || 1860 31,443,321 | 16.13 | - | 1810 7,239,881 | 4.93 || 1870 38,588,371 | 20.93 | - | 1820 9,633,822 | 4.93 || 1880 50,155,783 | 22.57 | - | 1830 12,866,020 | 6.72 || 1890 62,622,250 | 29.20 | - | 1840 17,069,453 | 8.52 || 1897 71,551,571 | [146] | - +----------------------+-----------++----------------------+-----------+ - -The preceding table shows that, from 1891 to 1897 inclusively, the -population of the United States increased by about 8,929,321 -individuals, or, distributing this [SN: INCREASE OF POPULATION.] number -over seven years, the increase will be 1,250,000 souls in each -successive year. And the approximate proportions of this increase -indicate that every year about 105,665 new families were reproduced by -the 5,246,334 families that hire their homes; and about 31,698 by the -1,624,765 families that hire their farms, leaving out here the -propertied. And the heritage of these 137,363 newly formed families -under the conditions is to be homeless and landless subjects of -dividogenesure, even as their unfortunate parents are. For scarcely any -of them could acquire property and thus escape paying rent. - -If then we conclude that the one set of the newly born families -consisted of the tenants of rentable [SN: RENT PAID FOR HOUSES.] homes, -while the other of the tenants rentable farms, we must admit that they -paid at least the same average rents for homes and farms as their -parents did. Therefore, the first set per family paid $9.50 a month as -follows: - - Table of the House Rent Paid. - - 105,665 families in 7 years paid $ 84,320,670 - 105,665 families in 6 years paid 72,274,860 - 105,665 families in 5 years paid 60,229,050 - 105,665 families in 4 years paid 48,183,240 - 105,665 families in 3 years paid 36,137,430 - 105,665 families in 2 years paid 24,091,620 - 105,665 families in 1 year paid 12,045,810 - ------- ------------ - 739,655 Total $337,282,680 - -Thus the homeless families of the year 1891 paid the largest amount of -the house rents up to the [SN: RENT PAID FOR FARMS.] end of 1897. -Meanwhile the other yearly additions of the new families paid less and -less, on account of having been younger in age. The number of the -increased families renting houses, then, was 739,655, and the total of -the rent they paid was $337,282,680. - -The increased families of the farming occupations, by having paid the -average rent of $2.75 per acre, for the average of 136 acres of land per -family,[147] have paid sums as follows: - - Table of Rent Paid for Land: - - 31,698 families in 7 years paid $ 82,985,364 - 31,698 families in 6 years paid 71,130,312 - 31,698 families in 5 years paid 59,275,260 - 31,698 families in 4 years paid 47,420,208 - 31,698 families in 3 years paid 35,565,156 - 31,698 families in 2 years paid 23,710,104 - 31,698 families in 1 year paid 11,855,052 - ------- ------------ - 221,886 Total $331,941,456 - -That’s what the increase of the homeless and landless population means. -The newly formed families could neither avoid paying the rents in favor -of the same landed and propertied rich; nor could they avoid paying -indirect taxes in favor of the national government, as we shall soon -see. And they could not avoid being the slaves of dividogenesure, nor of -being victims of extortion by various trusts and monopolies. In making -our final conclusion of the profits and losses, the above amounts of -$669,224,136 worth of paid rents by the increased families will be -included into the previous totals of house and land rents. - -But, in respect to all farmers’ rents and the average acreage, it should -again be noticed that we have dealt only with minimums of their -expenditure in favor of the land monopolies. [SN: INCREASE OF RENTED -FARMS.] For, “according to the _abstract_ of the eleventh census (p. -97), farms cultivated by their owners increased 9.56 per cent; rented -farms, 41.04 per cent, and farms rented for a share in product,[148] -19.65 per cent. In the north central division farms cultivated by their -owners increased less than 1 per cent, while rented farms increased 66 -per cent. In the North Atlantic division, rented farms increased only 6 -per cent, while farms cultivated by their owners actually diminished. -The farmers thus complain that they are losing possession of their farms -and becoming tenant farmers.”[149] - -On p. 112 we have seen the enormous amount of indebtedness on the owned -farms in the United States.[150] “The percentage of incumbered farms -was, for the United [SN: PERCENTAGE OF INDEBTED FARMS.] States, 47; -Kansas, 30; Iowa, 32; New Jersey and Mississippi, 34; Nebraska, -Delaware, and South Carolina, 35; South Dakota, 39; and at the other -extreme, Oklahoma, 95; Utah and New Mexico, 85; Arizona and Idaho, 74; -Montana, 73; Maine, 71.”[151] This economic state of the farms and -farmers continued to exist from 1890. Consequently there is enough -evidence to make one sure that thousands of farm mortgagors have lost -their mortgaged farms by foreclosure, and have become merely tenant -farmers without real property. The increase of the propertyless through -mortgages may even be greater than through the increase of the -population, though we regard only the latter. - -Seeing also that the “Principal of Public Debt” has increased from -$1,549,206,126 in 1890 to $2,092,686,024 in 1899,[152] it is probable, -therefore, that the indebtedness of private families [SN: INCREASE OF -PUBLIC DEBT.] has also greatly increased up to the end of 1897. Yet, -except the annual interest charge against the indebtedness in force from -1890, neither the increase of the mortgage losses, nor the increase of -the gains from them, has entered into our accounts, even as the great -net earnings of the non-national banks, often drawing immense profits -from mortgages, etc., have been totally omitted from our estimate.[153] - -If, therefore, there should be any decrease in the few unrevised net -earnings of the natural monopolies after 1890,[154] the net earnings of -the above banks alone would abundantly fill up the loss with a great -remaining superfluity. Seeing also that the cities grow and the -population increases, increasing every business in favor of the same -monopolies, no one will doubt that our conclusions will be moderate, and -especially so, because we have failed to ascertain the net incomes of -several trusts. - -As to the trusts, the American Anti-Trust Journal, No. 3, Chicago, says: -“Go and talk to the thousands of commercial travelers—those skirmishers -on the firing line of commercial independence—who have been thrown out -of employment by the trusts. They will tell you of hundreds and hundreds -of business men who have been forced out of business within the last -four or five years. They will tell you how the trusts ordered one man -after another to close his establishment. They will give you the names -of ambitious and thriving proprietors who are now clerks or agents of -gigantic corporate combinations, all hope dead, all opportunity gone.” -Dealing as it does with the trusts of still later development, the array -of facts in this Journal shows that our final conclusions for 1897 can -only be very moderate. - -This being so, and disregarding the crooked ways of making profits, let -us then make up the complete summary of the preceding losses by the -United States people during the period from 1891 to 1897 inclusive, as -follows: - - 2d Table of the Concentration of Wealth. - - ----------------------------------+-------------------- - Monopolies and Combinations. | Total Net Incomes. - ----------------------------------+-------------------- - The natural monopolies[155] | $ 4,255,826,950 - Mortgagee monopolies[156] | 3,775,470,286 - Owners of rentable houses[157] | 5,503,857,212 - Monopolies of rentable lands[158] | 4,585,276,226 - Owners of rentable offices, etc., | - in cities | 3,033,425,468 - Manufacture and mechanical trades | 7,812,000,000 - Mining monopolies | 560,000,000 - ----------------------------+-------------------- - Grand total | $29,526,156,142 - National and local taxes paid by | - them[159] | 3,455,963,952 - +-------------------- - THE TOTAL CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH | $26,070,192,190 - | - The total increase of national | - wealth | 21,787,908,803 - ----------------------------------+-------------------- - Excess of net incomes over and | - above the total increase of the | - national wealth | $ 4,282,283,387 - ----------------------------------+-------------------- - -The above table of the net incomes shows the conclusions that must -deeply astonish the thinking people. It shows that a “terrible change -has occurred in the conditions of life in America within fifteen or -twenty years.” But this concentration of wealth has taken place within -seven years, when the national expenditures for wars and the incomes of -monopolies and trusts started to increase. The latter obtained -$26,070,192,190. - -Think of this total concentration of the wealth in seven years! It is -twenty-six thousand seventy millions of dollars’ worth of wealth. [SN: -TOTAL LOSS OF WEALTH.] While the total increase of the national wealth, -during the same time, only amounted to $21,787,908,803, which was -entirely concentrated in the hands of monopolies and combinations, -together with the additional concentration of yet another amount of -$4,282,283,387. This astonishing fact indicates that the _net income of -about one million families in the United States has been greater by -$4,282,283,387 than the total increase of the wealth collectively -produced by the nation_ during the period under consideration. - -The whole increase of the wealth then has been lost in favor of the few. -But what does this over four billion dollars difference between the -total increase and the total net incomes of the monopolies and -combinations mean in view of the situation? Where does this over four -billion dollars’ worth of wealth come from? - -This surplus amount of $4,282,283,387 of the net incomes certainly -cannot mean anything else than that the families, unconnected with -monopolies, trusts, and other combinations were quickly eating up [SN: -LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS WEALTH.] themselves. They not only have absolutely -lost all that they produced during the time of seven years, but have -also lost $4,282,283,387 worth of the wealth which they owned in 1890. -So that the aggregate of about $9,260,228,000 worth of wealth which was -owned by the 11,190,152 “families worth $5,000 and under”[160] in that -year, must have been greatly reduced by monopolies, trusts and -combinations. There cannot be any doubt, too, that hundreds of thousands -of the “families worth $5,000 and over”[160] have also suffered from the -same causes. Hence, the absolute loss of $4,282,283,387 worth of the -previously owned wealth must have been shared by all in favor of the -very few families whose undoubted prosperity has indeed been unusual. -For they have concentrated the enormous total of over $26,000,000,000 -worth of the people’s wealth in seven years, and have thus made the -greatly increased population much poorer in 1897 than it was in the year -1890. - -And this fact of growing poverty has not been unsuspected. For, if Mr. -W. H. Mallock, in trying to prove the contrary, admits “that the rich” -in England “do grow [SN: THE POOR GROW ABSOLUTELY POORER.] richer and -the poor grow relatively poorer, because their numbers increase, -although it seems that in the distribution of wealth a greater share (of -it) falls on their part.”[161] As for the United States, it was also -said that “since 1873 the poor have grown relatively, if not absolutely -poorer.”[162] The method used here for establishing this fact leaves no -doubt that the rich in both countries do grow absolutely richer and the -well-to-do and the poor in the United States do grow relatively and -absolutely poorer: accordingly, “the largest fortunes” in this country -“are increasing most rapidly,” says Dr. Charles R. Henderson.[163] - -The reasons why “the largest fortunes are increasing most rapidly” have -already been indicated in this and in the preceding chapters. The most -potent of these [SN: THE REASONS WHY THE RICH GROW ABSOLUTELY RICHER.] -reasons are: 1. The profoundly unjust and abnormal principle of -dividogenesure, which further and further underrates the value of human -labor energy and overrates the value of mechanical forces in favor of -the wealthy. 2. The too high percentages for loans and capital, which -deprive mortgagors of the fruits of their labor and cause the losses of -property. 3. Abnormal excess of selling prices over cost of production, -and lowering prices on raw materials. 4. Different frauds and extortions -carried on by means of “watering-stock” and so on. All these and other -unjustifiable means are freely used by monopolies and combinations -against the general well-being of the United States people who are -constantly robbed and speculated upon by a very few members of the -nation. - -As an example of the stock-watering by railroad monopolies, I introduce -here the exact paragraphs of Dr. Spahr who, after representing the table -of figures of stocks and bonds and the cost of railroads to original -investors, says: - -“It should be observed, however, that the sum upon which the public is -paying interest is not the total capitalization of the railroads, nor -even the stocks and bonds not [SN: EXTORTION FROM THE PUBLIC.] held by -other railroads, but rather the sum upon which five per cent net is -realized by the roads. This sum in 1890 was $6,627,000,000.[164] Not -from the standpoint of socialism, but from the standpoint of common -morality, which condemns as robbery both the refusal of the public to -pay interest upon capital actually lent it, and the compelling of the -public to pay interest on capital never lent it, _the two thousand and -odd millions of railroad capital representing no investment_[165] is -simply capitalized extortion. - -“But not even the fruits of this extortion have gone to the original -investors. The expenditures of railroads and the dividends they declare -[SN: DIRECTORS OF THE HIGHWAYS.] have been so largely in the hands of -loosely controlled directors, that railroad construction, railroad -purchases, and railroad speculation have all served as means to divert -the property of the stockholders on the outside, into the pockets of the -managers on the inside. Nearly all the profits of this extortion from -the public have passed into the hands of a comparatively few men -intrusted with the management of the public highways.”[166] These -passages simply indicate another way of extortion from the public of the -wealth it creates. - -In addition to these crooked ways of concentrating all that the public -has and all it produces, [SN: THE TAXES.] let us examine the amounts of -the direct and indirect taxes paid by the wealthy and the poor during -the same time of seven years. Upon this subject Dr. Spahr speaks as -follows: - -“When we consider only the revenues actually received by the government -the conclusion inevitably [SN: THE PROPORTIONS OF INDIRECT TAXES.] -reached is that the wealthy class pays less than one-tenth of the -indirect taxes, the well-to-do class less than one-quarter and the -relatively poorer classes more than two-thirds. The table summing up the -incidence of these taxes in 1890 would stand as follows: - - +-------------------+---------------+----------------+-------------+ - | Class of Incomes. | Total Incomes | Total Property | National | - | | in Dollars. | in Dollars. | Taxes + - | | | | in Dollars. | - +-------------------+---------------+----------------+-------------+ - | $5,000 and over | 3,110,000,000 | 35,500,000,000 | 35,000,000 | - | $5,000 to $1,200 | 2,890,000,000 | 21,500,000,000 | 85,000,000 | - | Under $1,200 | 4,800,000,000 | 9,000,000,000 | 260,000,000 | - +-------------------+---------------+----------------+-------------+ - - +-------------------+---------------------+ - | Class of Incomes. | Taxation to | - | +---------+-----------+ - | | Income. | Property. | - +-------------------+---------+-----------+ - | $5,000 and over | .01 | .001 | - | $5,000 to $1,200 | .03 | .004 | - | Under $1,200 | .05 | .028 | - +-------------------+---------+-----------+ - - -The above table of indirect taxes indicates that the poorer classes -(including the homeless and landless) which had only little over -$9,000,000,000 worth of the aggregate wealth, paid more than twice as -much of these taxes as did the well-to-do and the wealthy classes taken -together. Dr. Spahr, therefore, adds: - -“In the domain of direct taxation such injustice would not be tolerated -one month, [SN: THE INDIRECT TAXES PAID.] but in the domain of indirect -taxation it is endured year after year.”[167] So that, enduring similar -injustice seven years—from 1891 to 1897 inclusive, the increased number -of families paid the totals of indirect taxes approximately as follows: - - Table of Indirect Taxes Paid, 1891-7. - - -------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------- - Classes | | Totals | - of Families. | Number. | of Property. | Taxes Paid. - -------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------- - Families worth | | | - $5,000 and over | 1,695,117 | $79,825,000,000 | $ 840,000,000 - Families worth | | | - under $5,000 | 12,755,310 | 7,000,000,000 | 1,479,179,059 - -------------------+------------+-----------------+---------------- - -The fact that the total revenue, including customs, etc., received by -the government in the seven years amounted to $2,319,179,059,[168] -indicates, that while the population has increased, the indirect taxes -seem to have decreased by $340,820,941 below [SN: THE TAXATION MOST -UNJUST TO THE POOR.] the amount which would be required by the rates -paid in 1890. This diminution would average about $48,688,705 in each -successive year, and may be due to the passage of the Wilson Bill. -Although Dr. Spahr says that this bill has not materially changed the -situation, because the poorer classes, as we see, have paid $639,179,057 -more for the support of the government than did the well-to-do and the -wealthy classes together. He therefore adds that “our system of national -taxation remains in proportion to its weight the most unjust to poorer -classes of any now tolerated in any popularly governed country.”[169] Of -course, “the situation was the most unjust,” when the families worth -$5,000 and under were smaller in numbers and when they owned over -$9,000,000,000 worth of collective wealth. But the injustice now -surpasses all degrees of comparison, because these families increased by -about 1,565,158, even without counting the families worth $5,000 and -over whose wealth must have been reduced below the worth of $5,000. - -As to the distribution of local taxes in the year 1890, these were paid -as follows: - - TABLE OF LOCAL TAXES PAID. - - Families with incomes of $5,000 and over $220,000,000 - Families with incomes of $5,000 to $1,200 170,000,000 - Families with incomes of under $1,200 125,000,000[170] - -From this table it is clear that the local taxation is not so unjustly -imposed upon the poorer families as the indirect taxation [SN: LOCAL -TAXATION IS LESS UNJUST.] is.[171] Yet judging from the facts that the -above table represents gross incomes, and that the poorer classes lose -all the wealth they produce in favor of monopolies and combinations, the -injustice against these classes cannot again be regarded other than a -profound injustice. For, having been paid seven years—from 1891 to 1897 -inclusive—these taxes amount to as follows: - - Table of Local Taxes Paid. - - ------------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------- - Classes | Number | Totals of Property | Taxes Paid in - of Families. | of Families. | in Dollars. | Dollars. - ------------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------- - Families worth | | | - $5,000 and over | 1,695,117 | $ 79,825,000,000 | 2,615,963,952 - Families worth | | | - under $5,000 | 12,755,310 | 7,000,000,000 | 875,000,000 - ------------------+--------------+--------------------+--------------- - -As to these taxes Dr. Spahr says that “from the incomes less than $1,200 -less than three per cent is taken; from the incomes above $5,000 seven -per cent is taken. Nevertheless, even these relatively [SN: THE TOTALS -OF TAXES PAID IN SEVEN YEARS.] humane burdens rest twice as heavily upon -the property of the poorer classes as upon the property of the rich. -When these local taxes are joined with the national, the aggregate tax -is one-twelfth of the income of every class. There is no exemption of -wages. All the resourceless individuals,[172] even the absolute slaves -of dividogenesure, who divide the results of their labor with the -wealthy, are compelled to pay taxes from their wages. And “the -wealthiest class is taxed less than one per cent on its property,” says -Dr. C. B. Spahr, “while the mass of the people are taxed more than four -per cent on theirs.”[173] Consequently we see that the 1,695,117 -families whose wealth, at the end of 1897, aggregated to $79,325,000,000 -worth, paid $3,455,963,952 of the national and local taxes. While the -12,755,310 families whose aggregate wealth, at the same time, was -reduced to about $7,000,000,000 worth, also paid $2,354,179,059 of these -taxes, though these families could not have any net income at all. - -Whatever might be the gross income of the 12,755,310 increased families -under the network of imposition spread by the combines, they could not -have any net income [SN: THE PROPERTYLESS IN 1897.] at all, because at -the end of 1897 these families represented about 63,150,136 individuals -of a multiple expenditure in every individual case. And as these -families include about 7,832,640 propertyless families which represented -about 38,785,279 homeless individuals, each of which in addition to his -multiple expenditure, is obliged to pay rent for shelter and to pay for -permission to labor, the multiple expenditure of every one of these, -therefore, surpasses that of each individual of the remainder of the -population. - -It would, however, be wrong to suppose that we had only 7,832,640 -propertyless families at the end of the period. For beside these -families there were thousands of the mortgagor [SN: NOT ALL THE -PROPERTYLESS COUNTED YET.] families in the beginning of 1891 which held -the last pieces of the mortgaged property. And they could not but lose -the very last under the heavy pressure of the combines and of the -taxation, thus becoming propertyless, too, though we are unable at -present to ascertain their number. Yet we may be sure of the fact, that -the more propertyless families we have, the more house and farm rent -they must pay to the wealthy; and hence the more rapid the concentration -of the wealth and more extensive slavery of dividogenesure must be -caused thereby. - -It would also be groundless to think that the years 1898 and 1899 have -altered the firmly established [SN: THE YEARS AFTER 1897.] machinery of -concentration of the national wealth. No, the concentration of wealth in -these two years has undoubtedly been more rapid than in any two previous -years. For the trusts, etc., have been more active, and have obtained -greater net incomes on account of the war than in any two years before. -While in addition to the [SN: THE TAXES INCREASED.] more rapid -concentration of wealth by the combines, the war revenue caused a great -increase in the rates of the indirect taxes, etc. And since “these taxes -were imposed by Congress, under the Revenue Act approved June 13, 1898,” -both the propertied and the propertyless people continue to pay them up -to date as a drain additional to the other losses in favor of the -wealthy few. - -It should also be remembered that, remaining unabated, the more rapid -concentration of wealth [SN: INCREASE OF THE CONCENTRATION OF WEALTH AND -RIGHTS.] and of property rights to-day, produces a still more rapid -concentration of wealth and of rights to-morrow, because increased and -concentrated wealth consolidates into interest-bearing property—the rate -of interest being derived from the growing population which by hunger, -thirst, and other forces is compelled to work for the mighty few. And -what will be the consequence? - -According to Mr. J. K. Upton, special agent of the Eleventh Census, “the -estimated increase of wealth from 1880 to 1890 was 49 per cent. A -proportionate increase from 1890 to 1900 would indicate wealth of nearly -$100,000,000,000 at the beginning of the twentieth century,”[174] say, -at the end of 1901. And if the present situation continue, it will not -be difficult to guess the time when nearly the whole nation would -consist of desperate slaves of dividogenesure, and of about 1,000,000 -masters distributing places of employment at will—in accordance with the -highest efficiency and profitableness of the employed—for the cheapest -remuneration favorable to a few multimillionaires. - -As exposed in this work, the situation precludes the entertaining of any -better view, however desirable it may be. For the following estimates of -the increase of the people prove that the situation has even been worse -than here represented. - - - “PRESENT POPULATION OF THE - UNITED STATES.” - -“According to estimates made for the World Almanac by the governors of -the States and Territories for 1900,”[175] exclusive of Alaska and the -Indian Territory, the “grand total, January 1, 1900, is 79,354,444 -individuals.” - -It is quite probable that the average family will now be at the most 4.9 -members each.[176] If it is so, then we have about 16,194,581 families -in the nation. And, disregarding [SN: THE PROPERTYLESS IN 1900 A GREAT -NATION.] again those that were sure of losing the last pieces of their -mortgaged property, we should now have about 8,958,437 families without -real property, which would represent 43,896,342 propertyless individuals -of multiple expenditure in every case. So that, paying monthly rent at -$9.50 each, these homeless families must pay $1,021,261,198 for the year -1900 alone. But if we [SN: RENT WILL BE PAID.] admit the regular -increase of the farm tenant families, we may now have about 1,941,745 of -them occupying rentable lands at the averages of acres and of rent -previously stated, the total rent of all the tenants of farms and homes -would, therefore, reach $1,526,114,903 for one year. And the rent will -be higher the next year, although new rentable houses and flats are -built by the speculators every year. - -For, with the active monopolies and combinations concentrating a greater -amount of national wealth than the people can produce, the increase of -population causes [SN: IMPOSSIBILITY OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY.] utter -inability of about 65,000,000 of individuals to acquire property.[177] -And this very inability causes a constant rise in the average land and -house rent. So that, if some years ago the average house rent was $9.50 -a month per family of nearly 5 members, it may now be above $11 every -month. The 8,958,437 tenant families would, therefore, pay over -$1,687,367,389 of farm and house rent to the few owners of cities, -towns, and of lands in one year. - -Thence, the phenomenal net incomes of the omnipotent afford the ample -reasons for defending by all means in their power the present situation -of the nation’s toiling for the few. - -Finally, as long as the concentration of wealth in the private -monopolies, trusts and combinations not only absorbs all the yearly -increase of wealth produced by the nation, but absorbs the wealth -formerly [SN: IT IS A QUESTION OF TIME ONLY.] owned by the people, it -does not make a difference whether these combinations raise or lower the -high prices of utilities which they speculate in upon the market, the -whole wealth and the entire rights for wealth must sooner or later be -concentrated in the hands of a very few families, because all the means -of concentration are within their hands. Consequently, it is not a -question whether these all pervading combinations are beneficent or -malificent in their character, as in either case they work out the same -evil result. But the question is only a question of time: how long -before the people with all their superior productivity and phenomenal -increase of wealth will have neither wealth nor property, nor rights, -nor sufficient means for existence? How long before they all shall in -all details be absolutely dependent upon the very few speculators, whose -unbounded fortunes the tens of millions of workers are constantly -compelled to increase? See Appendix II. - -Again, this concentration of wealth can neither be hindered by raising -the prices of the raw materials and products, nor even by the [SN: -REFORM IS NECESSARY.] raising of wages, nor by lowering the prices of -consumable utilities, nor by lowering the present rents, because the -rate of concentration of wealth now surpasses all degrees of change -which may be effected by such regulation, while the net profits from the -nation’s energy and labor are ultimately derived only by the few, who -are becoming fewer. - -The millions of individuals must therefore free themselves from the -delusive hopes of some day becoming rich; for the strong tendency, as we -have seen, is to deprive [SN: VAIN HOPES OF THE PEOPLE.] every one of -his proper food and of the satisfaction of other increasing needs. In -order to become free from the economic bondage and slavery of -dividogenesure, it is necessary that the distribution of wealth should -be made to bring about more equal results, and that the present means of -the concentration of wealth should work in favor of all the people -engaged in the numerous spheres of human activity. See Appendix III. - -And it is again to be hoped that the present parents in the United -States would in nowise hesitate to provide some better conditions of -life for their children in the far and near future. - - - - - APPENDIX. - - - I. - -Percentages and numbers of families in the United States in 1890, under -owned and rented homes and farms, were represented by Dr. C. B. Spahr as -follows: - - [Families Identified with Farms and Homes.] - - ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- - Owned: |Percent.| Numbers. |Rented | Percent. | Numbers. - ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- - In cities above | | | | | - 100,000 population: | | | | | - Homes owned | 22.83 | 444,879 |Rented:| 77.17 |1,503,955 - In cities from 8,000 | | | | | - to 100,000: | | | | | - Homes owned | 35.96 | 629,092 |Rented:| 64.04 |1,120,487 - Outside such | | | | | - cities: | | | | | - Homes owned | 43.78 | 1,849,700 |Rented:| 56.22 |2,374,860 - Farms owned | 65.92 | 3,142,746 |Rented:| 34.08 |1,624,433 - ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- - Totals and averages | | | | | - (for all) owned[178] | 47.80 |*6,066,417 |Rented:| 52.20 |6,623,735 - ----------------------+--------+-----------+-------+----------+--------- - -Footnote 178: - - As we have seen on p. 116 that 1,696,670 families out of the total of - the owning ones* in 1890, were in debt, having their properties under - mortgage. And only 4,369,747 families out of 12,690,152 in the United - States were free owners of wealth. Compare the above totals with - statistical averages on p. 79. See Dr. Spahr’s “Present Distribution - of Wealth in the United States,” 1896, p. 53. - - - II. - - DEFINITIONS OF TRUSTS AND MONOPOLIES. - -“A trust,” as defined by a committee of the New York State Legislature, -“is a combination” aiming “to destroy competition and to restrain trade -through the stockholders therein combining with other corporations of -stockholders to form a joint stock company of corporations, in effect -renouncing the powers of such several corporations, and placing all -powers in the hands of trustees.” The general purposes and effects among -them are “to control the supply of commodities and necessities; to -destroy the very possibility of competition; to regulate the quality of -all commodities; and to keep the cost to the consumer at prices far -beyond their fair and equitable value.”[179] Further, “Trust is” an -acting scheme “where, by a device of trusteeship, various corporations -practically form one monopoly without losing their separate -corporateness. The novel characteristic of such a trust is not in its -being a monopoly, but the way in which the monopoly is attained.”[179] - -Mr. Charles W. Baker in his _Monopolies and the People_, says: - -“A trust is a combination to restrain competition among producers, -formed by placing the various producing properties (mills, factories, -etc.) in the hands of a board of trustees, who are empowered to direct -the operations of production and sale, as if the properties were all -under a single ownership and management.”[180] - - - MONOPOLY IN PRIVATE HANDS. - -“A monopoly in industry may be defined as the control of some natural -agent, of some line of business, or of some advantage over existing or -possible competitors, by which greater profits can be secured than other -competitors can make.”[181] - -All these definitions indicate that the private monopolies and -combinations have one and the same purpose or end in view: It is to find -such devices and means and to establish such organization of business -activity, which will enable the organizers and managers to obtain from -the people the greatest profits for the least cost, thus concentrating -the people’s wealth in a few hands without paying anything to the people -in return. - - - III. - -On the contrary, a monopoly of the government or of municipality may be -defined as a system of controlling the natural or artificial agencies of -public service and utility at such a cost to the public served, which -will merely cover all expenses necessary (to construct and) to keep -these agencies in the best serviceable and available condition or state, -thus leaving no room for the unjust concentration of the people’s wealth -in any private hands. - - - - - INDEX. - - - Average: rate per cent on debt, 123, 124; - average wealth of the rich, the well-to-do, the middle, and of the - poor classes, 28, 29; - of over 27-millions, 51, 52; - average, for homes in debt, 113; - for farms in debt, 111, 112; - differences in averages of different authorities, 38; - —rents, see: Rent. - - - Blocks illustrating comparison of individual wealth, 50. - - Bread-winners by C. D. Wright, 85. - - - Capita: per capita wealth, 27, 38; - per capita debt, 122, 123. - - Capital: aids to increase production of wealth, 55-57; - concentration of capital increased, 140, 155. - - Cities: per cent of the homeless in, 80; - cities’ families in debt, 114, 115; - large cities’ families in debt, 114, 115; - cities belong to 24 and 14 per cent of their population, 118, 132. - - Comparison of the poor and the rich by dollars’ worth, 7, 8; - comparison in tables, 42; - of the family-groups, 39; - of the U. S. with France at the time of Revolution, 16; - with Rome, 17; - by Crosby Hon. Ino. Reciprocal comparison of the middle classes of - two tables, 39. - - Concentration: of wealth in higher spheres, 153; - of employees, 155, 156; - 1st table of concentrated wealth, 150; - 2d and final table of, 169; - explanation of this concentration, 170; - concentration of wealth increases, 180, 181; - concentration of wealth greater than the total increase of it, 170, - 171. - - Consumers’ opinion on remuneration of capital and laborers, 97, 98; - do not know the bases of justice and rights, 98, 99. - - - Debt: on farms, 111, 112; - on homes, 113; - increase of, 1880-89, 119-122; - increase of public debt, 167; - total debt on acres and lots in 1890, 121, 124-5; - percentages of families in debt in cities, 114, 115; - debt of the U. S., states, counties, school districts, etc., foot - note, 126; - of New York, foot note, 134; - amounts of, on real estate, 121; - per capita, 122; - extinguished debt, 12.68%, 122; - interest charge against debt, 124; - combined interest charge against families’ debt, 125, 126. - - Distribution of wealth: 1st table, 28; - 1st R. table, 29; - 2d table, 32; - 2d R. table, 36; - 2d Right table, 45; - 1st and 2d tables, 47. Table I, 6; - diagrams for conclusions of Mr. Holmes, 5; - diagrams for conclusions of Mr. Shearman, 12; - Table II; - conclusions of Mr. Shearman, 12; - diagrams for conclusions of Dr. Spahr, 20; - double table III for these diagrams, 21; - conclusions of Dr. Spahr, 18; - conclusions of Geo. K. Holmes, 5, 6. - - Dividogenesure: definition and origin of, 70; - divides people into classes, 71; - its tacit power of enslaving the people or expelling into the sphere - of charities, 72; - it enforces idleness, 73; - is the main cause of misery, 74; - is sister of primogeniture, 74; - is a pernicious principle, 74; - its favorites without moral responsibility, 75; - is a system of slavery distinct from any other slavery, 75, 76; - the propertyless are special victims of it, 92, 103-4; - is a foundation of iniquity, 87, 88; - implies degrees of hardship against its dependents, 117, 74; - its hardship according to the rates of gain from each employed - individual, 103-4; - its rates are not wages, but pure losses, 106; - differs from primogeniture, 131; - future of the nation under dividogenesure, 106-7, 181. - - - Energy: human energy embodied in objects, 98; - crystallized in articles, 99; - human energy concentrates into the hands of speculators, 99, 100. - - Extortion: from the public by excess of selling prices over cost of - production, 158, 159; - by mining monopolies, 161; - by stock-watering, 173, 174. - - - Families: groups compared, 39, 42; - basis of family-worth, 39, 41, 42; - statistics of—occupying farms and homes, 79,—hire farms, 81,—hire - homes, 81, 82; - farm families in debt, 111, 112; - home-families in debt, 113; - table of farm and home families, 116; - one million of rich families, 92, 103-4; - dividends of the million families, 103, 104 and 138-9; - one million (families) masters, 181-2; - 263,380 families of the well-to-do class included into the average - of the poor of the 2d table, 32; - exposed by comparisons, 39, 42; - surplus million families found in the tenant group, 2d table, 32, - 34, 35. - - Farms: acreage of, 148; - rent per acre, 148-9; - acreage for the increased population, 164-5; - rent, 165; - increase of rented farms, 166; - percentage of incumbered farms, 166, 167; - farms in France, 49. - - Future of the nation (possible), 106-7. - - - Gainful pursuits, persons engaged in, 91-2. - - Galileo signed Jesuit Verdict, 16. - - Germany, Berlin, 48, 49. - - Great Britain, distribution of private property, 48, 49. - - - Herron, George (Professor dismissed from the Iowa College), 107. - - Holmes, G. K. U. S. Census Expert on Mortgage Statistics, 6, 14, 15, - 24; - not partisan, 33, 35. - - Holmes, G. H., view on mortgages, 132. - - House-Scarb defined, 8. - - - Income: daily income from the poor, 138-9; - gross incomes of the workers decreased, 143; - net incomes of many trusts omitted, 151-2; - net incomes of the owners of the central parts of cities, 152-3; - net incomes of the manufacture and mechanical trades, 157-8; - net incomes of the mining monopolies, 161; - total net incomes of the natural, mortgagee, rentable house, and - land monopolies, 150; - total net incomes of all monopolies, etc., table, 169; - excess of the incomes over the total increase of wealth, 169, 170-1. - - Inventions: as aid to human energy, 85, 86; - they are blessing and curse, 86; - inventors were a blessing to humanity, 98. - - - Landowners of England, Scotland, Holland and of Germany, 56. - - Logical Premises, 5; - logical premises of life, 25. - - Losses: special of the wage-earners, 157; - special of the farmers, 160; - special of the miners, 161; - loss of the previous wealth by the people, 171; - total loss of wealth in 7 years by the U. S. people, 170. - - - Mayo Smith, Prof., compares French proprietorship of land with that of - England, 49. - - Monopolies: definitions of, Appendix II and III; - profits of the mortgagee, 145; - profits of the natural, 101, 145-6; - profits of monopolies of the rentable homes, 146-7; - profits of rentable lands, 149; - the total net incomes of 4 classes of monopolies, 150; - grand total of the total net incomes of the monopolies and - combinations, 169; - explanation of the net incomes of the monopolies, 170-1. - See: Incomes, the excess of. - - Mortgages: statistics of, 111; - development of, 119; - significance of, 128; - semi-optimistic views on, 128; - view of Mr. E. Atkinson on, 128-132; - of Mr. G. H. Holmes, 132; - view of Rev. Wm. D. P. Bliss, Editor of Enc. of Soc. Reform, 133; - Semi-pessimistic views: view of Mr. J. P. Dunn, Jr., Burden of Debt, - 134; - losses of property by foreclosure, an example, 135, 136; - view of Mr. D. R. Goodloe, 136. - See: Debt. - - Mulhall, Mr., comparison of farmers of different countries, 93. - - - Napoleon Bonaparte, 107-8. - - - Poor: grow absolutely poorer, 172. - - Population: in families, 18; - in individuals, 5, 12; - increase of in 1897, 163, 164, 165; - in 1900, 182. - - Primogeniture, Great Britain and Japan, 70, 74, 136. - - Productivity of the Americans: on farm, 93; - in industry, 94, 95, 96. - - Propertyless: “Less than half the nation,” 18; - “tenants,” group 1st, 2d table, 32; - causes of the increase of the propertyless, 52; - propertyless is a resourceless man of multiple expenditure, - 61-68-71; - he is a source of multiple income for many propertied, 68; - without employment, 69; - pay rent or are expelled, 77-78; - unseen forces compel him to be a slave, 76; - more than half the population, 82; - made the nation in 1865, 85; - could build and inhabit 33 most populous cities, 83, 84; - have nothing to hope for, 86-7; - number of in 1897, 179; - number of in 1900, 182. - - - Rates of interest are higher against the poor debtors, 127-8. - See: Debt. - - Real estate indebtedness, 121. - See: Debt. - - Rent: house rent per family, 147; - house rent on farms, 149; - rent paid for homes and farms by increased population, 164-5; - average house rent, 147; - for farms, 148-9; - totals of rent paid, table, 169; - according to Dr. Spahr for 1890, house and office, 152-3; - rent for 1900, 182-3-4. - - Resources: of the propertied, 53-60; - of the propertyless, 61, 64-5; - a semi-resourced man, 68. - - Rich: comparison of, 42; - deeper reasons why the rich grow absolutely richer, 172-3. - See: Distribution. - - Rome, mistress of the world, 17. - - - Shearman, Tho. G., conclusions of, 11, 12, 24, 32; - his basis of averages differ, 38; - one average covers 89.4% of the entire population, 40. - - Spahr, C. B., Dr. conclusions of, 18, 20, 24; - table, 28, 31. - See: Taxes. - - Statistics of wealth, by J. K. Upton, special agent of the 11th - census, 27, 181. - See: Mortgages. - - Steam power: increase of, 57. - - - Taxes: proportions of national taxes, 175; - indirect taxes paid, 176; - decrease of national taxes, 176; - unjust to the poor, 176; - local taxes: proportions of, 176; - local taxes less unjust to the poor, 177; - local taxes paid, 178; - the poor pay taxes on gross incomes, 179; - total taxes paid by the rich and the poor, 178, 179; - taxes increased by the war, 180-1. - - Tenants of farms and homes, 32; - the correct number of, table, 36. - See: Propertyless. - - Trusts: definitions of, Appendix II; - development of, 154-156; - incomes of some trusts omitted, 151-2; - trusts more active, 180; - the view of Henry Brown, Associate Justice of the U. S. Supreme - Court on trusts, 162. - - - Wages: economic doctrine of the rate of, 141; - wages would be twice as low, 141; - artificially kept up, 142; - reports on the fall of wages, 142-3. - - Waite, F. C., special agent of the 11th census in charge of True - Wealth: ascertained the earnings of the natural monopolies for - 1890, 99, 101. - - Wealth: table of, 27; - accumulation of, 27; - True wealth, 99, 101; - land is the source of wealth, 54, 55; - average wealth per family, $5,125, table, 29, 47; - per capita, lower table, 27, 38, table, 51; - aggregates of wealth owned by different classes, 1st table, 29, 45; - wealth owned by individuals, table, 51; - chart, 50; - concentration of wealth, tables, 150, 169 (for 1897); - increase of wealth (for 1900), 181; - increase of in 7 years, 139, 140; - increased phenomenally, 140; - who profits by the increase of, 144-5; - concentration of in industries, 154; - largest fortunes of, increase most rapidly, Dr. Henderson, 172; - wealth reduced with the increased number of families, 171. - See: in the tax table, 178. - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - FOOTNOTES: - - -Footnote 1: - - Quoted from “The Public,” Number 69, July 29, 1899. - -Footnote 2: - - Louis Post, ibid. - -Footnote 3: - - His name cannot be here given. - -Footnote 4: - - This work will show the real causes of it and the rapid tendency - toward it. - -Footnote 5: - - Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 1435. Ed. by Rev. Wm. Bliss and - published in 1897 by Funk and Wagnalls Company, New York and London. - -Footnote 6: - - This 5 per cent includes personal, unproductive property of all sorts. - -Footnote 7: - - Mind that these statements are of one authority only, viz.: Mr. G. K. - Holmes. - -Footnote 8: - - House-scarb means: all domestic or household property that may be - carried on from one rentable house to another. - -Footnote 9: - - Dr. C. B. Spahr, Pres. Distribution of Wealth in the U. S. (1896), p. - 69; published by Thos. Y. Crowell & Company, Boston. - -Footnote 10: - - Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 1388. - -Footnote 11: - - Ibidem, p. 1388. - -Footnote 12: - - This table gives you the exact equivalent of diagrams found on p. 12. - -Footnote 13: - - So far, we give honor to Mr. Holmes in advance. - -Footnote 14: - - One of the best authorities in statistics. - -Footnote 15: - - Reported in Binghamton Independent of Aug. 12, 1899. - -Footnote 16: - - “The Public,” Chicago, No. 74, Sept., 1899. - -Footnote 17: - - The diagrams and statistical tables supply the life contents for these - premises. - -Footnote 18: - - The exact statistics of the Eleventh Census, 1890, have given the - average at about 4.93 members to a family, which means that in each - 100 families 93 have 5 and 7 have only 4 members. In 1880 this average - was 5.04, and in 1870, 5.09 members to a family. - -Footnote 19: - - Ibid., p. 69.—I italicize these conclusions. See Enc. of Soc. R., p. - 1389. - -Footnote 20: - - Dr. C. B. Spahr, “The Present Distribution of Wealth in the U. S.,” - 1896. - -Footnote 21: - - Whereas the general average of per capita wealth was $1,036. - -Footnote 22: - - Here, p. 6. - -Footnote 23: - - Here, p. 13. - -Footnote 24: - - Here, p. 21. - -Footnote 25: - - Here, see p. 18. - -Footnote 26: - - Dr. Spahr, “Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States,” p. - 69.—Enc. of Soc. R., p. 1389. - -Footnote 27: - - Enc. of Soc. R., p. 1384. - -Footnote 28: - - C. D. Wright, “Atlantic Monthly,” Sept., 1897. - -Footnote 29: - - “Encyclopedia of Social Reform.” (p. 1388), 1897, by Rev. Wm. Bliss. - -Footnote 30: - - Dr. Spahr, “Present Distribution of Wealth in the U. S.,” p. 69, 1896, - who held each family at five members. - -Footnote 31: - - It should be borne in mind that, “Goods, wares, merchandise, utensils, - furniture, cattle, provisions, and every other species of personal - property, was included among the assets” representing wealth. Dr. - Spahr, Ib., p. 55. - -Footnote 32: - - Encyclopedia of Social Reform (publ. in 1897), p. 1388. - -Footnote 33: - - These totals have been summed up by me. - -Footnote 34: - - Table, p. 32, here. - -Footnote 35: - - Compare the total wealth of this table with that on p. 27. - -Footnote 36: - - Here, p. 13. - -Footnote 37: - - Atlantic Monthly, Sept. 1897. - -Footnote 38: - - See here, p. 18. - -Footnote 39: - - This is the restored group of the 1st table, p. 29. - -Footnote 40: - - 3d group, p. 32 or 36. - -Footnote 41: - - See Diagrams, p. 12, and Table II, p. 13. - -Footnote 42: - - Compare these families in the 2d restored table, p. 36. - -Footnote 43: - - Compare the same families in the 1st restored table, p. 29. - -Footnote 44: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1389. - -Footnote 45: - - Statistics and Sociology, p. 201-2. - -Footnote 46: - - Subtraction has been made on p. 36. - -Footnote 47: - - See table, p. 29. - -Footnote 48: - - The total number of immigrants entered into the United States from - 1891 to 1897 inclusively was 2,854,834.—The World Almanac, 1899, p. - 176. - -Footnote 49: - - Here, p. 18.—Dr. Spahr, “The Present Distribution of Wealth in the - United States,” p. 69. - -Footnote 50: - - Even the uncultivated land is a great source of income to its owner. - And if it were not so, the great landowners of England and Scotland - would not have owned fully 20,000,000 acres of the U. S. land. But now - five of them own it, and draw large incomes from it, while remaining - at home beyond the Atlantic. And the Holland syndicate and the German - syndicate could not have owned 7,000,000 acres of the U. S. land, if - it were not a source of income, even without special application of - any labor energy to it. But now the former syndicate owns 5,000,000 - acres of grazing land in Western States; and the latter owns 2,000,000 - acres of it in various States, as the “Up to Date, Coin’s Financial - School,” has indicated, pp. 108-118. - -Footnote 51: - - Chas. R. Henderson, D. D., “Social Elements,” p. 144. - -Footnote 52: - - Some one may of course prefer to live in another’s house, as they say, - not willing to pay taxes for his own property. But a just taxation can - never cause this trouble. The abnormity of taxation is shown here in - Chapter VI. - -Footnote 53: - - Land, Capital, Rentables, Salables are income-bearing properties. - -Footnote 54: - - “Encyclopedia of Social Reform,” p. 1389. - -Footnote 55: - - _Dividogenesure_ means: (As a class and as an individual, I am the - owner of land, of wealth and capital): Divide with me your sole - results of active energy upon my source of wealth, or else you may be - sure you have only the right to starve from drain by others without - this supply. [Latin: _divido_, divide, part, separate. Greek: - _genesis_, origin, source, creation, origination, production. Latin: - _ure_, (perish) by rust, by fire, by cold, wither, dry up, or starve - to death.] - -Footnote 56: - - Here, p. 32 or 36. - -Footnote 57: - - Dr. Warner, American Charities, pp. 178-9, Dr. T. Ely’s edition. - -Footnote 58: - - I italicized his words. - -Footnote 59: - - I italicized his words. - -Footnote 60: - - Dr. Warner, ibidem, p. 181. - -Footnote 61: - - Remember that these conclusions are moderate. - -Footnote 62: - - These owning families include the mortgagors. - -Footnote 63: - - Many of these home-owning families are in debt, and their homes serve - as securities for it. - -Footnote 64: - - Enc. of Soc. R., pp. 899-900. - -Footnote 65: - - He pays rent. - -Footnote 66: - - He pays rent and divides the results of his labor, p. 58-61. - -Footnote 67: - - See conclusion, p. 18. - -Footnote 68: - - Mr. Wright, “Atlantic Monthly” for September, 1897. - -Footnote 69: - - See his conclusions and my explanation of them, here, pp. 12, 13. - -Footnote 70: - - Compare for this the original tables, pp. 28, 32 and 51. - -Footnote 71: - - See 1st R. table, group 1st, p. 47, and as individuals, p. 51. - -Footnote 72: - - Mayo Smith, “Statistics and Sociology,” pp. 200, 201-2. - -Footnote 73: - - Mr. E. Atkinson, “The Distribution of Products,” p. 15. - -Footnote 74: - - Ib., p. 22. - -Footnote 75: - - Ed. Atkinson, ib. p. 27. - -Footnote 76: - - Ed. Atkinson, ib., pp. 77, 78. Also, Enc. of S. R., p. 1093. - -Footnote 77: - - “Socialism and Christianity,” p. 205. Also Enc. of Soc. R., p. 289. - -Footnote 78: - - Prof. John R. Commons, “Distribution of Wealth,” p. 258. Also, see - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1102. - -Footnote 79: - - “Gross receipts less gross disbursements.” - -Footnote 80: - - Totals made up by me. - -Footnote 81: - - Compare the last two groups with the first two of the table, p. 28. - And compare the same groups of table, p. 51. - -Footnote 82: - - See this number and families, p. 92. - -Footnote 83: - - See tables, p. 36 or 45. - -Footnote 84: - - By the “other” monopolies, I mean some monopolies, companies, trusts - and combinations which have not been mentioned here at all, and many - of which deal with rentable houses in cities, and so on. - -Footnote 85: - - Prof. George Herron’s dismissal from the Iowa College is a striking - example, foreboding the nation’s near future. This professor was - forbidden by financial necessity to teach what is good for the - people.—“The Public,” Nov. 11, 1899, Chicago. “The Public” No. 115, - 1900, has now on record four other professors similarly dealt with in - different colleges on grounds similar to that of Prof. G. Herron. One - of these four is President Henry Wade Rogers, of the Northwestern - University, at Evanston, Ill. - -Footnote 86: - - Artificial property again means all things that were created or - invented by man in the past or the present. - -Footnote 87: - - See the same number on p. 79. - -Footnote 88: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 899. - -Footnote 89: - - This number contains 1,624,765 tenant farming families. - -Footnote 90: - - Remember that the tenant families are excluded here. - -Footnote 91: - - Lien means a legal claim on property which must be paid. - -Footnote 92: - - Remember that the 4,999,396 tenant families are excluded here. - -Footnote 93: - - These percentages are from the Official Bulletin, No. 98. - -Footnote 94: - - Dividogenesure is the stronger, the larger the per cent an employer - obtains from the results of the labor of every employee; and is the - weaker, the smaller the per cent he obtains from every one dependent - on him for life. - -Footnote 95: - - That is, the rate of making mortgages in 1880th year was 643,143, and - the yearly rate in 1889th year was 1,226,323 in one year. - -Footnote 96: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 901. - -Footnote 97: - - Dr. Spahr, ib. p. 67. - -Footnote 98: - - All expressions under the inverted commas are from Bulletin. - -Footnote 99: - - Bulletin No. 71, Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 901. - -Footnote 100: - - Continuation, “On the debt in force against acres, $162,652,944; on - lots, $234,789,848,” is the yearly interest. - -Footnote 101: - - Here, p. 112. - -Footnote 102: - - Ib., p. 113. - -Footnote 103: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 902. This interest charge is at the end of the - Extra Bulletin No. 71. - -Footnote 104: - - Yet, it should be remembered that we do not here deal with the debts - of Railroad Companies, Street Railway, Telegraph, Telephone and other - companies and corporations; nor do we deal with the U. S. debt of - $891,960,104; States, $228,997,389; Counties, $145,048,045; - Municipalities, $724,463,060; School districts, $36,701,948, which in - 1890 made the grand total of $18,027,170,546 including the debt under - our consideration. But we deal with family-debtors, for whom debt is - equal to ruin. Whereas debt to the others is prosperity. - -Footnote 105: - - That is, if we divide them by the line of families worth $5,000 and - over, and families worth $5,000 and under; and the latter will include - the economic dependants. - -Footnote 106: - - Here, p. 119. - -Footnote 107: - - Here, p. 121. - -Footnote 108: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 904, Edition of 1897. - -Footnote 109: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 904. - -Footnote 110: - - Ib., p. 904. - -Footnote 111: - - Mr. Dunn could not have known at the time that some Eastern States - were even worse than the Western ones, and that “New York,” for - instance, “is” more “conspicuously prominent as having a real estate - mortgage indebtedness of $1,607,874,301, which is 26.71 per cent of - the total indebtedness on acres and lots in the United States.” - -Footnote 112: - - Here, pp. 91, 92, or Mayo Smith, Statistics and Sociology, p. 200. - -Footnote 113: - - As the rates of their gains show, pp. 104, 105. - -Footnote 114: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1386.—Waldron, “Handbook on Currency or - Wealth.” - -Footnote 115: - - References: Enc. of Soc. R., see “Unemployment.” Dr. Spahr, “Present - Distribution of Wealth in U. S.” (1896).—J. R. Common’s “Distribution - of Wealth,” Enc. p. 1392. - -Footnote 116: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1392. - -Footnote 117: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1370. - -Footnote 118: - - Mr. and Mrs. Webb, “History of Trade Unionism,” p. 1 or 2. - -Footnote 119: - - “Introduction and Mutual Insurance,” vol. I, pp. 148-9, 150-1164. - -Footnote 120: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, pp. 1370, 1373 and the Labor Reports. - -Footnote 121: - - Dr. Spahr, ib., pp. 116, 117. - -Footnote 122: - - The above 246,938 families could not be here classified among the - tenants of farms consisting of the 1,624,765 families, because after - losing their country properties, these homeless hurry on to crowd up - cities. - -Footnote 123: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid, p. 122-3. - -Footnote 124: - - As numerous inquiries convince me. - -Footnote 125: - - According to the U. S. Census of 1890, there were 4,564,641 farms - consisting of 623,218,619 acres of land, or an average of 136 acres to - a farm. World Almanac, 1899, p. 184. - -Footnote 126: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, pp. 22, 23; also based on the census. - -Footnote 127: - - “Present Distribution of Wealth in the U. S.,” pp. 104, 105; (see - here: Appendix I.). The same: Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1385—table of - incomes, 1890. - -Footnote 128: - - Some one may suppose that some net earnings of the national banks - might overlap some net earnings of the mortgagee monopolies, since - mortgage profits are often obtained by banks. But such a supposition - cannot have a real ground here, because the national banks are - prohibited by the law of the United States to make investments in - mortgages; and because mortgages of real estate, being not easily - convertible securities for loans, would not be admissible by them. The - only exception made by the law for these banks is that, for a - necessary accommodation of their business, a mortgage may sometimes be - held as a security, collateral to some other which is more easily - convertible into currency. (See Revised Statutes, §5137. Prof. - Dunbar’s “Theory and Hist. of Banking,” p. 26.) - - It is the non-national or State banks that often directly deal with - mortgages. But estimating their gross earnings at $200,000,000 for the - year 1890 (see p. 101), Mr. Waite evidently could not ascertain their - enormous net incomes, hence we leave them to be understood as surplus - above all our concluding totals of net incomes. - - And whereas, the net incomes of the national banks decreased - $110,378,930 in the 7 years, those of the life insurance companies - increased $108,932,030 (World Almanac, 1900, p. 180, 184) and with the - help of the omitted net incomes of the gas companies (p. 101) more - than offset the loss, leaving our totals correct. - -Footnote 129: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, 1897, pp. 1346-7; from “Philadelphia Times,” etc. - -Footnote 130: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., pp. 104-5. - -Footnote 131: - - It was the gross income. - -Footnote 132: - - See the upper table, p. 42. - -Footnote 133: - - Table, p. 47. - -Footnote 134: - - Lower table, p. 42, 1st two groups. - -Footnote 135: - - Mr. Waldron, “Hand-book on Currency or Wealth,” pp. 106 and 107. See - also: Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1389. - -Footnote 136: - - See the statistical conclusions on the fall of wages, p. 134; also Dr. - Spahr’s “Present Distribution of Wealth,” etc., pp. 95-118. - -Footnote 137: - - “Present Distr. of Wealth in U. S.” (1896), pp. 104, 105, 112. Here, - pp. 140-143. “Average daily wages: 1873, $2.04; 1891, $1.69; urban - laborers.” - -Footnote 138: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., pp. 104-5. Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1385. - -Footnote 139: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., pp. 98, 104-5. Also: Statistics of Massachusetts - Bureau of Labor, 1890, p. 319. - -Footnote 140: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., p. 104-5. - -Footnote 141: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., pp. 116, 117. - -Footnote 142: - - Ibid., pp. 104, 105. - -Footnote 143: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., p. 104-5. - -Footnote 144: - - World Almanac, 1899, pp. 200, 225. - -Footnote 145: - - Quoted from Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1347. - -Footnote 146: - - For 1897 is an approximate estimate of The World Almanac, 1899, p. - 200, foot note. - -Footnote 147: - - It might be that some of these families paid house rents on farms - beside the land rent, as Dr. Spahr has shown; while some others might - pay simply house rents, and thus offset each other, making the above - sum correct. - -Footnote 148: - - “For a share in product” is an initial form of serfdom pure and - simple. - -Footnote 149: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, pp. 606-7. - -Footnote 150: - - Also here, p. 125. - -Footnote 151: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, pp. 606-7. - -Footnote 152: - - World Almanac, 1900, p. 174. - -Footnote 153: - - Here, see foot-note, p. 150. - -Footnote 154: - - Table of profits, here, p. 101. - -Footnote 155: - - Includes the increase of $310,001,619 by the railroad, telegraph and - telephone monopolies, p. 162. - -Footnote 156: - - Excludes net incomes of the artificial gas companies and those of the - non-national banks (beside mortgages) as not given in the table on p. - 101. See foot note, pp. 150, 167, 168. - -Footnote 157: - - Includes the house rent on farms and that of the increased population, - pp. 149, 164. - -Footnote 158: - - Includes the rent of land paid by the increased populations, p. 165. - -Footnote 159: - - This amount of double taxes is calculated to have been fully paid for - 7 years on the net incomes here stated, and on all the property these - trusts, etc., have had in the beginning of 1891 and after, according - to the tax rates to be here indicated. - -Footnote 160: - - Compare tables, here, on pp. 42 and 47. - -Footnote 161: - - Mr. Mallock’s “Classes and Masses” (1896.) - -Footnote 162: - - Enc. of Soc. Reform, p. 1392. - -Footnote 163: - - His work on “Social Elements,” p. 162. - -Footnote 164: - - “Statistics of Railways, 1890,” p. 58. - -Footnote 165: - - I italicized the words. - -Footnote 166: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., pp. 41, 42. The total capitalization of railroads in - 1890 was represented by $9,437,300,000, while the total investment - amounted to only $3,714,400,000. And Mr. Van Oss stated that “shares - now return at least 18 per cent per annum on the actual investment.” - Ibidem. - -Footnote 167: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., p. 143. The total incomes in the table of taxes - above represented are gross incomes. - -Footnote 168: - - Statistics, World Almanac, 1899, p. 165. - -Footnote 169: - - Dr. Spahr, “Present Distribution of Wealth in the United States,” p. - 143-4. - -Footnote 170: - - Ib., p. 156-7. - -Footnote 171: - - “Extra Census Bulletin No. 70” represents taxes on property $465,000,000 - including corporations for 1890 - - Licenses, poll taxes, etc. (about) 50,000,000 - - ------------ - - Total (the same as that contained above) $515,000,000 - - The Bulletin adds that “three-fourths of this tax falls upon the - relatively poorer classes.” Dr. Spahr, ibid., p. 156. - -Footnote 172: - - See here, pp. 64, 65, 68, 72. - -Footnote 173: - - Dr. Spahr, ibid., pp. 157, 158. - -Footnote 174: - - The World Almanac, 1899, p. 164. Mr. Upton, here, p. 27. - -Footnote 175: - - The World Almanac, 1900, p. 539. - -Footnote 176: - - This average would mean that in every 100 families 90 have 5 and 10 - have only 4 members. See the decrease of family membership: foot note, - p. 18. - -Footnote 177: - - “It is interesting to remark that, while in 1893 the number of the - propertyless families reached over 7-millions, the national and local - Building and Loan Associations having net assets of over $450,000,000, - have,” in 25 years, “helped to secure” only “probably over 400,000 - homes,” says Mr. Wright, U. S. Commissioner of Labor. The World - Almanac, 1899, p. 168; ib., 1900, p. 172. But that inability is - aggravated by the taxation unjust to the poor. See here, pp. 174-178. - -Footnote 179: - - Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 1346. - -Footnote 180: - - Encyclopedia of Social Reform, p. 1346. - -Footnote 181: - - Ibid., p. 888. - - - - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -Transcriber’s note: - - • Silently corrected obvious punctuation and capitalization errors. - Several unpaired double quotation marks were retained as they - occurred in the original text. - - • Unless noted below, spelling and hyphenation are retained as in the - original. - - • Footnotes have been renumbered and moved to the end of the book. - - Other changes: - - • Removed half-title page originally on first page - • Page 003: thousands of like opnions → thousands of like opinions - • Page 036: surplus milion families → surplus million families - • Page 039: distribution of weatlh → distribution of wealth - • Page 048: more wealth that → more wealth than - • Page 099: in possesion of others → in possession of others - • Page 108: Napoleon Boneparte → Napoleon Bonaparte - • Page 132: bound, by dividogensure → bound, by dividogenesure - - • Page 163: In the table "Increase of Population" corrected the value - for percent of population in cities for the year 1880. Changed - from 2.57 to 22.57. The correct value was taken from page 18 of - the 1890 census - http://www2.census.gov/prod2/decennial/documents/1890d9-01.pdf pg - 18 - - • Page 192: defintion and origin → definition and origin - • Page 193: not partizan → not partisan - - - -***END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE IMPENDING CRISIS*** - - -******* This file should be named 50424-0.txt or 50424-0.zip ******* - - -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: -http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/5/0/4/2/50424 - - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |