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

“An estimate of the distribution of wealth in the United States was made by Mr. Thomas G. Shearman | 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 c

“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: The last historic table shows that the accumulation of wealth by the nation has been phenomenal, and equal to the expense of labor | 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

“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 | 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

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 | 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 con

“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 | 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,” bein

“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 | 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

“There are 420 cities and towns that have a population of 8,000 to 100,000, and in these “cities | 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 th

“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

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 | 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 t

“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 | 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 | INTE

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 | 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 mortgag

“The mortgage indebtedness of the Western States is a matter worthy the attention of economists | 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

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 | 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

“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 | THE PROPERTYLESS IN 1900 A GREAT NATION. | again those that were sure of losing the last pieces

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: 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 Distribut

“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

“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 mana

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. 1 .   Quoted from “The Public,” Number 69, July 2