sioners of that city have denied a longer exercise of the privilege of peaceful assemblage, and this act has so aroused the wrath of the people, particularly the working people, that vigorous protests are being entered against the park commissioners for having assumed the right to restrict the liberties of the people.

The working men and women of the city of Boston evidently believe, as did Coalton, when he said: "Liberty will not descend to a people; a people must raise themselves to liberty. It is a blessing that must be earned before it can be enjoyed."

The following resolutions, adopted at a mass meeting held in old historic Faneuil Hall, gives evidence of a determination to both earn and enjoy the blessings of liberty to assemble upon the Commons, and that freedom of speech belonging to a free people:

Resolved, That the denial of the right of the workingmen in their organized capacity to assemble upon Boston Common, and there express their views upon important questions of the day, was and is an assumption of authority unwarranted by anything either in the spirit or letter of the constitution or laws of the state or ordinances of the city of Boston.

Resolved, That we, the common people, resent with all the earnestness of which we are capable this aristocratic attempt to classify and exclude the people from the very spot where the revolutionary fathers often assembled to freely speak their opinions and perfect plans for the overthrow of aristocratic rule.

Resolved, That freedom of speech is one of the inalienable rights of an American citizen, and when that right is successfully denied the glories of the republic fade away and the dissolution of a government by the people draws near.

Resolved, That in emulation of the spirit of the men of Boston who assembled in this hall and freely spoke their opinions, who assembled in the Old South Church to prepare for the event and then marched to the harbor, and throwing overboard the tea, symbolized their determination to overthrow monarchy and aristocratic rule, so we, the inheritors of all rights, liberty, freedom of speech and other privileges gained by the fathers, proclaim it our bounden duty to march to the appointed place, and when the hour arrives, to use the mighty power of the ballot for the overthrow of aristocratic government in Boston.

The attempt to suppress free speech and curtail the liberties of the people is not confined to the city of Boston. Corporate capital in all sections of this country has made and is still making strenuous efforts to abridge the rights and restrict the privileges of our working people to a degree that will render them helpless to resist the power and encroachment of wealth and those who own it.

To our country and to labor, liberty is the parent of virtue, order and all good things, and it should be maintained at all hazards, at all times and under all circumstances.

Organized labor does not believe in that lib. erty of action or speech that gives license to do wrong, but it believes that "true liberty. consists in the privilege of enjoying our own

rights, not in the destruction of the rights of others."

It would be well for labor and its interests, if organized workers everywhere would emulate the work of protest sent up by Boston laboring men and women, and the entire strength of trade unionism, aided by that powerful auxillary, the ballot, should be engaged in an effort to halt corporate capital in its attempts to still further encroach upon the rights and liberties of our citizen laborers. Equal and exact justice to all men, should be the slogan of organized labor.

MUNICIPAL OWNERSHIP.

The agitation started by the American Federation of Labor in favor of municipal ownership of water, gas and electric plants, has had a beneficient effect, not only in an educational way upon our own people, but in a practical way in many cities where the experiment, if it can be so called, has been tried. The city of Washington, D. C., is one of the last, and among the most important, converts to this plan.

Washington has the reputation of being one of the most progressive and best governed cities in America, and because of this, cheaper and better light is demanded. Several months ago the board of trade appointed a committee to investigate and report "what was a fair price for gas, and what steps should be taken to secure it at such a price," and further instructed the committee to report whether private or municipal ownership would do the work most advantageously. The report made is an interesting and instructive one in many ways. There are three corporations now furnishing light to the city, and the report shows that large profits have been made each year by them. This case is cited to bear them out:

"The Washington Gaslight Company, chartered by congress in 1848, with a capital stock of $50,000, now has a capitalization of $2,000,ooo, and during the past year it has paid 20 per cent. on the latter sum, besides 6 per cent. interest on $400,000, making a total of $435,000 divided among the stockholders on an actual cash investment of not exceeding $500,000. The report says that the regular dividend of the company of late years has been 10 per cent. on its capitalization of $2,000,000, but the amounts carried to the surplus fund indicate that the profits of the company justify an average dividend at least 5 per cent. greater, or 60 per cent. per annum upon the amounts supposed to have been paid."

No corporation should be allowed to make such profits out of the people.

The committee found by investigation that the maximum price for producing gas was 66%

cents per thousand feet, and that a charge of $1.00 per thousand would be an exorbitant price to charge consumers.

Quoting from "Municipal Government in Great Britain," the committee say that it is almost the universal testimony in Great Britain that municipal gas enterprises are a brilliant success. They have steadily reduced the selling price and largely increased the consumption. Their management has been as efficient and economical as that of the private companies. They have been able, while selling gas at a low price, to pay expenses and interests, accumulate sinking funds, enlarge the plants and make good all current depreciations, and still pay net profits into the municipal treasury.”

The committee believed that municipal ownership was best for the people's interests, and recommended the following:

Resolved, That the legal committee of the Board of Trade be, and it is hereby instructed to prepare and press before Congress, a bill providing for the condemnation of the plants of the Washington Gas Light Company, the United States Electric Lighting Company, and the Georgetown Gas Company, and also providing for the raising of sufficient money to pay therefor, and also for the conduct hereafter of the lighting business by the district of Columbia.

This resolution evidences the tendency of the times; it demonstrates that the people are awakening to the fact that they are competent to do their own business, to manage and con trol their own property. When progressive cities like Washington, D. C., lead in the fight for the abolition of private and the substitution of collective ownership, the days of corporation rule, of tyranny and oppression over employes, are numbered. God speed the day.

THE settlement effected by the Typographical Union with the Werner Printing Company scores another victory for that organization, the A. F. of L. and for organized labor. It also demonstrates the power of the boycott when properly used. Now that the boycott has been lifted, and an honorable settlement made, the fight should end and our members everywhere aim to give such aid and encouragement as they can to the Werner Printing Company, thus proving that our friendship is as much to be desired as our enmity is to be feared.

THE wage-working people believe that this country is top-heavy with the weight of oppression and wrong-doing, and that the time is at hand for reform work of a pronounced character, but the great majority hold back and throw the burden of progressive effort upon the shoulders of the few. This is not right. Reform work for the relief of labor never originates with the rich and powerful, but, on the contrary, oppression always begins at the top and reforms at the bottom of society.

to commit perjury.

The

The Illinois Bureau of Labor Report. That which strikes one forcibly in the report of the Illinois bureau of labor statistics is its boldness. subject is the condition of labor and its burdens, which, it is shown, are because of indirect and unequal taxation. Striking examples of the practice of undervaluation are given. The bankers and brokers of Cook county, population 1,191,922, and the moneyed center of the west, return less taxable assets than those of Macon county, population 38,083. In the summer of 1893, when the credit of the banks was in question, they showed resources of, moneys, $18,991,771.67, and, credits, $1,058, 105.25. When the tax collector put in an appearance, nine months later, these figures had dwindled to, moneys, $43,925; credits, $10,000. Several instances of this kind are given. Facts and figures are also given to show that "the homes of thrifty workingmen are taxed twice as much in proportion to their value as the homes of the rich." The report says: "It is the duty of the assessor to ' actually view and determine, as nearly as practicable, the fair cash value' of each piece, and upon making his return to swear it 'contains a correct and full list of all the real property subject to taxation' within its jurisdiction. To verify a false return is No just excuse exists for the violations of law which these tables show. That the most guilty are among the rich and respectable makes their evasions none the less lawless. Neither can they take refuge in the plea that these wrongs are sanctioned by custom; the custom itself is fraudulent, and mainly of their own making. Quick to appeal to the law and order sentiment when an exasperating sense of wrong drives the poor to lawless acts, they themselves should be held to strict account. any legal or moral difference between their lawlessness and the aggressions of the poor be predicated of the fact that the latter are active and violent, while the former, generally speaking, are only evasive. Men, like animals, fight with their natural weapons-lions with force, foxes with cunning. Occasional spasms of violence, deplorable and indefensible as they are in a democratic country, are no worse, and they are really less dangerous, than the sly evasions of law through which the rich and respectable profit at the expense of the poor. Wealthy people who either actively or passively avoid a full listing of their property, who wink at its undervaluation, who knowingly pay less taxes than their share under the law, not to mention those who go to the length of committing perjury to accomplish the end, are more truly criminal than the hungry tramp who steals food, or the angered striker who burns a freight car."

Nor can

The tendency to monopolize land is vividly illustrated. In 1887 the average size of an Illinois farm was only 62 acres, and 75 per cent in value of American land is said to be owned by less than 10 per cent of the whole number of land owners. The exemption of vacant land from equal taxation with improved is shown to be a fine upon industry.

Says the report: "A building must be kept in repair

or it will deteriorate; the land requires no repairing. And no matter how well the owner protects it, a building will ultimately yield to the destructive forces of time and become wholly valueless, but the lot, if population continues to grow, will continue to rise in value until it reaches a point at which, for his mere consent to the use of the lot, its owner can draw an annual fortune in ground rents from the enterprising builder who undertakes its improvement."

A chapter on "Evils and Remedies," is given. The increase of land values is illustrated by the most valuable quarter acre of land in Chicago, corner of State and Madison streets, which in 1830, when the population numbered 50 people, was worth $20. Its value in 1894 was estimated at $1,250,000.

Of property rights it is said: "It is fundamental that a man's right to property flows from his right to himself. That entitles him to exercise his powers, and to own whatever the exercise of his powers produces from the inexhaustible fountains of matter and force from which all material things come, and to which they return. The only limitation is that he shall not so exercise his powers as to interfere with the equal rights of others to the exercise of theirs. If he fishes alone, the fish he catches are his. If he plants and digs alone, the product is his. Whatever he does unaided belongs entirely to him, provided he does not thereby trespass upon the equal rights of others to do to the extent of their powers what he does to the extent of his. And if for mutual benefit he unites his powers with the powers of others, as in the construction of a house, the construction and management of a machine, the working of a mine, or a factory, or whatever else may be the nature of the employment, he justly owns all the products of human labor, whatsoever their character, that are freely yielded to him in consideration of his assistance. This principal is the foundation of all just property rights."

Again: "The question whether America shall continue to lead the world in extending and broadening the doctrine of human liberty, or whether the insidious foe of corruption-the potential hand-maid of organized wealth-shall undermine its fabric and destroy our liberties, must be answered by the young men and young women who are assuming the responsibilities of life to-day. All the signs of the times point unmistakably to the fact that our nation is confronted with conditions and problems that are tossing us about on a wild sea of uncertainty and commotion, the like of which we have never before been called upon to witness. Poverty makes cowards of us all,

and man feels the weakest when his pocketbook is empty and he is forced to beg for work."

A removal of taxation from all forms of production. and placing it upon site values is recommended, and drafts of laws, as well as an amendment to the state constitution, are given for the carrying out of that object.

The above quotations sufficiently show the character

of the work. It is refreshing to find such plain words emanating from a state institution, which speaks well for the individual members of the board.

We are so accustomed to veneering nowadays that when the unvarnished is spoken from conservative sources of this kind it excites surprise, not to say pleasure. The book can be had free by addressing the secretary of the bureau, George A. Schilling, Springfield, Ill.

Oklahoma.

BY GRANT SHOOP.

In 1858, Hon. Galusha Growe, of Pennsylvania, introduced into the national house of represenatives what was known as the Growe homestead bill. After a hot fight, being bitterly opposed by the south, the measure was finally passed, but was promptly vetoed by President Buchanan. In 1862 Mr. Growe again brought forward his homestead bill, and it was readily enacted into law, receiving the approval of President Lincoln. It provided that every citizen-and every alien who had declared intention to become a citizenmale or female, over the age of 21 years, and every head of a family regardless of age, might acquire title to 160 acres of the public domain, free, by residing upon continuously and cultivating the land for a period of five years, proof of such residence and cultivation to be made within seven years from the date of settlement. Subsequently special privileges were granted to honorably discharged union soldiers and seamen, and a provision for commutation of entry was passed.

Under the beneficent provisions of this law, private titles were acquired to almost the entire western portion of the United States, including vast areas east of the Mississippi surpassing in fertility the famed valley of the Nile. Everybody shouted, "Hurrah for Uncle Sam! He is rich enough to give us all a farm.” Immigration flocked from every quarter of the globe, and a development was made the most wonderful in all the history of man. The land belonged to the people, and it was given them freely; the foreigner was invited to come and choose for himself, the only return asked being that he swear allegiance to our government. He hastened to accept the invitation, and brought his family and kindred along with him. In fact, in many localities he gobbled up about everything in sight. The price the government had paid for the land cut no more figure than did the fact that our foreign brethren, being at the time of the purchase subjects, perhaps, of the very government from which the land was bought, had no part of the purchase price to pay.

April 22, 1889, by act of congress, a little tract of land known as Oklahoma, in the heart of the Indian territory, embracing 1,800,000 acres, was opened to settlement under the homestead law. The government had purchased an alleged equity of the Muskogee and Seminole Indians in the land, but no account was taken of the price, the land was given to

the settlers free. People surrounded the land for weeks before the opening, and many were permitted to enter in violation of the law. Finally the signal was given, and a mad rush for homes ensued. Before sunset the first day every quarter section had from one to a dozen claimants. The first year but little was produced, owing to the lateness of the season when the opening occurred, and the second year congress donated the settlers $47,000 in cash to help them through the winter. Notwithstanding our diminutive area, in due course of time congress provided a territorial government, and again the record was broken in development.

September 22, 1891, the Iowa, Sac and Fox and Pottawatomie reservations were opened to settlement and added to Oklahoma, and on the 19th of the following April the Cheyenne and Arapahoe reservations were also included within our boundaries, and our little territory of 1,800,000 acres had grown to more than 9,000,000 acres, and the rush for homes in each subsequent opening had been, if possible, more reckless than in the one preceding. But, behold, the generous policy pursued by the government for thirty years had suddenly changed. Uncle Sam was no longer "rich enough to give us all farms." In the Iowa and Sac and Fox lands the settlers were required to not only fulfill all the requirements of the homestead law, but at the expiration of five years must pay the government for their homes; in the Pottawatomie, Cheyenne and Arapahoe reserves it was even worse— they must pay half in two years and the remainder in five years. To make the terms still harder, the government had selected 160 acres of the best of all these lands for each Indian, big and little, and granted him a title, with a proviso that he should be exempt from taxation for twenty years.

September 16, 1893, what was known as the Cherokee outlet, containing 6,000,000 acres, was added in a similar manner, except that the price was in this case graduated from $1.00 per acre in the west end to $2.50 per acre in the east end of the tract, and interest charged from the date of entry, while in the Iowa and Sac and Fox country it was uniformly $1.25 per acre, and in the Cheyenne, Arapahoe and Pottawatomie lands, $1.50 per acre, without interest. The Cherokee Indians claimed an equity in the outlet, and notwithstanding that eminent jurists had held their claim to be void, congress, in its generosity, made them a present of over $8,000,ooo in consideration of their nerve, and proposes to collect that amount, with interest, from the settlers, to reimburse the United States treasury. Not only this, but it wants to shift several thousand of its wardsthe "noble red man "-onto the shoulders of Oklahoma, and in the western part of our territory has compelled the people to support county governments with a white population of less than 2,000, and nearly as many pauper Indians, and not a foot of taxable real estate outside of the towns-counties which should have been attached to organized counties for judicial purposes, until they were able to support county government. In fact, this could have been done profitably to the people in several instances. But it would

have deprived a few small-fry politicians of public nourishment, and that would never do.

At the coming session of congress, our representative, Hon. D. T. Flynn, who, by the way, bears the distinction of having once picked his living from the space box-a "country" printer-will introduce a a bill to make the original Growe homestead law applicable to Oklahoma indiscriminately, and any word that may be said in favor of this measure will be in the interest of justice, equity and humanity. Our people came here with the honest intention to abide by the law, unjust though it is, but they have expended their means in improving the land, providing the necessaries of life and supporting local government, made unusually burdensome by reason of the many contests incident to the manner of opening the land pursued by the interior department, and the civilization and education of non-taxable Indians, and when the payment becomes due not one in ten will be able to meet it. Must they abandon their all and relinquish the land to the government? Or, worse still, mortgage their homes to the money sharks, and thus throw the land into the greedy clutches of foreign loan syndicates? I think not. Congress will give relief. If it does not, a few years hence will be witnessed here a spectacle far more pitable than that of the eviction of the Irish tenants by their British landlords, which has so often made American blood boil-the United States army will be required to drive from their homes, not aliens who have sworn allegiance to the government in return for the free gift of a homestead, as in many sections of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota and other states, but men and women born, not like Saul of Tarsus, Romans, but prouder far—American citizens! (No civil authority will be equal to the task).

Oklahoma is no pauper. Neither do we ask something for nothing. All we want is fair treatment-the same opportunity that has been accorded our neighbors on all sides. Let the government give us the land free and we will return unto her the talent increased an hundred fold-aye, from the shapeless mass we will mould and present to her one of the grandest, richest, most enlightened commonwealths in the union-the fairest jewel in her diadem-and civilize, her blanket Indians besides.

Around the little nucleus of 1,800,000 acres with which we started six years ago, have gathered, including No Man's Land, now Beaver county, over 22,000,ooo acres more, with a population of 213,000, besides the Osage nation, Kiowa, Comanche, Apache and Wichita reservations, attached for judicial purposes, and the day is not far distant when the entire Indian Territory will be embraced within the great state of Oklahoma if congress will but return to the generous policy of development pursued from 1862 to 1891.

IT is more humane to sell the people than it is to sell the inheritance of the people, because if you sell and buy the people, they will be fed, someone will take pity on them. But on selling your inheritance, you can only stand watching it getting further and further away from you.

A Uniform Label Law.

The following bill has been prepared at the request of the executive council, and will be presented at the next session of congress:

A BILL

FOR THE PROTECTION OF TRADE-MARKS AND LABELS. Be It Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled: SECTION I. That any person who falsely makes, forges, reproduces, copies, or counterfeits, or who causes or procures to be falsely made, forged, reproduced, copied, or counterfeited, any trade-mark or label in imitation of, or purporting to be in imitation of, any trade-mark or label duly registered and used under the provisions of the statutes of the United States, or any person who, knowing such imitation of any such trade-mark or label to be fraudulent or counterfeited, affixes the same to merchandise, or articles of substantially the same descriptive properties as those referred to in said registration of such trade-mark or label, or who otherwise passes upon the public, utters or publishes any false, reproduced, copied, counterfeited or colored imitation of such registered trade-mark or label, knowing the same to be falsely made, forged, reproduced, copied, counterfeited, or such colored imitation, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 2. That any person who, with intent to defraud, shall deal in or sell, or keep for or offer for sale, or cause or procure the sale of, any merchandise or articles of substantially the same descriptive properties as those mentioned in the registration of any trade-mark or label duly registered and used under the provisions of the statutes of the United States, to which, or to the package in which, the same are put up, is fraudulently affixed such trade-mark or label, or any colorable imitation thereof calculated to deceive the public, knowing the same to be counterfeit, or not the genuine merchandise or articles referred to in such registration, shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. SEC. 3. That any person who, seeking to defraud the public, and without right, affixes, or causes or procures to be affixed, any trade-mark or label duly registered and used under the provisions of the statutes of the United States, or any colorable imitation thereof calculated to deceive the public, to any merchandise or article of substantially the same descriptive properties as those mentioned in such registration, shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Sec. 4. That any person who, seeking to defraud the public, and without right, fills or procures to be filled, any package to which is affixed any trade-mark or label duly registered and used under the provisions of the statutes of the United States, or any colorable imitation thereof calculated to deceive the public, with any merchandise or article of substantially the same descriptive properties as those mentioned in such registration, knowing the same to be counterfeit, or not the genuine merchandise or articles referred to in such registration, shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or imprisonment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

SEC. 5. That any person who, with intent to injure or defraud the owner of any trade-mark or label duly registered and used under the provisions of the statutes of the United States, or any person who, with intent to injure or defraud any other person lawfully entitled to use or protect the same, shall buy, sell, offer for sale, or deal in, any used or empty box, envelope, wrapper, bottle, cask, case, or other package, to which is affixed, so that the same may be obliterated without substantial injury to such

box, or other thing aforesaid, any such registered trade-mark or label not so destroyed, defaced, or erased, or obliterated, as to prevent its fraudulent use, shall, on conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment at hard labor for not more than two years, or by such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. SEC. 6. That any person who shall, with intent to defraud any person or persons, knowingly and willfully aid or abet in the commission of any of the offenses described in either of the foregoing sections of this act, shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.

Detroit in the Van.

BY J. W. SULLIVAN.

In the course of a tour I have just made of the country, which took in nearly every large city west of Pittsburg, the place most suggestive to me was Detroit. It is the handsomest city of the United States, and the leader of all others in sociological progress.

Detroit is the handsomest city, not because it has the most wonderful palaces or the finest streets, but because, as a place to live in, it has the fewest blemishes.

Detroit was well laid out originally. It stretches along a noble stream, the banks high and level. Several of the principal avenues run fan-shaped from a point a few blocks from the chief ferry, forming, with other streets crossing them, many little "squares" of various shapes. These squares are well cared for; the turf is kept green, trees are planted in large numbers, and in many places the grass plots are set off by floral designs.

There are few "rows" of houses outside the business district. The dwellings are quite uniformly detached from one another, each family having its own individual place for a home. The "no fence" system prevails. The street pavements are modern, in the larger thoroughfares commonly of asphalt. The sidewalk most frequently seen has a strip of grass three, five or seven feet wide, next the curb, with trees. The walk itself is not so wide as in other cities, a fact which suggests what a deal of brick and stone and concrete is usually thrown away in towns where no one ever treads. The houses are set back, giving room in front for lawns. When one looks along a street thus laid out, he sees it as an elongated open park, green, shaded and beautiful. I was told that a very little water had a good deal to do in causing this park-like effect. The householder pays nothing for the water used in sprinkling his lawn. Hence, if one head of a family in a block brings his garden hose into play on his front grass patch, a neighbor is pretty sure to emulate his example, and presently no one in the whole block will be found whose pride is not concerned in the general neatness of the lawns.

In the fact I have just stated, three principles have come into view: First, The law-which allows the lawn water free. Second, Public opinion-which holds Third, up the average citizen to his duty to the rest. Individual effort—which, when free, may be depended