The Single Tax and the Labor Movement


Peter Alexander Speek

[A Bulletin of the University of Wisconsin, No. 878, 1917, pp. 73-89]


Besides the taxes of the members of unions, another source was found in individual donations by workingmen and in penny collections -- by passing the hat -- at meetings of workingmen, especially at the political mass meetings.[1] But the money secured in this way was not enough to meet the usual legitimate campaign expenses -- printing and distributing ballots, and so forth. The deficit was met by several close friends of Henry George, as, for example, Thomas G. Shearman and Tom L. Johnson. Some money, though in small sums, came through the mails from outside sympathizers. Most of the campaign work was done by volunteers without pay. Everyone who sympathized with the campaign tried to do or to give something for its success. In this way were met the campaign expenses, which were really small as compared with those of the opposing parties, but which were heavy in comparison with the resources of the workingmen.


At the starting of the campaign, the need of an English campaign daily paper became a genuine necessity. This had been anticipated in a resolution introduced by Ludwig Jablinowski, cigarmaker, at the meeting of the Central Labor Union, July 11, 1886. The resolution was realized very soon after the beginning of the campaign. A new labor daily paper was called into life under the title of The Leader. The Central Labor Union came again to the front with a contribution of $1000, and the affiliated unions followed suit -- the Carpenters' contributed $1500 and other unions $100 each for the new labor daily. Among the individual contributors were Socialists, labor unionists, Knights of Labor, Singletaxers, Greenbackers, and many other sympathizers not affiliated with the labor movement. However, the Central Labor Union[2] and individual unions, especially their radical wing, constituted the majority of the contributors. The financial side of The Leader was organized independently of any existing organization, in the form of the shareholding Leader Company. This was incorporated under the New York law for corporations without profit, each shareholder being entitled to only one vote, irrespective of the number of shares he had -- a democratic rule adhered to by the laboring people all the world over. Louis F. Post was elected by the shareholders editor in chief.

The Leader at its beginning repudiated the idea that the movement was a class movement. The struggle "is in fact between the masses and the classes", meaning under the latter[3] term the political corruptionists of all sorts.

The circulation of The Leader fluctuated between 30,000 and 50,000. The first copy was sold in the number of 35,000 and the second of 52,000[4] and it was almost self-supporting. The small deficit which occasionally occurred was very easily covered by donations and by the income from The Leader fairs and dances organized for that purpose by labor unions.

The small Leader and the yet smaller Volkszeitung in German and the Irish World[5] constituted the sole campaign press for organized labor. This was too weak as compared with the rich, powerful and widely read press of the opposing parties, Democratic and Republican.

The entire press of the old parties took a very hostile stand toward the political movement of organized labor; especially did the Daily Illustrated Graphic, the Evening Post and Harper's Weekly severely attack the labor movement and its standard bearer, Henry George, calling him another Jack Cade and expressing the fear that he might "get a vote large enough to demoralize the officers of the law and diminish the protection we now enjoy against the mob violence."[6] The Sun reported that Henry George had said in a speech that the bloody French Revolution would now repeat itself in America. This report was quoted by other papers, again and again, for a long time, notwithstanding its inconsistency with the political principles put forward by organized labor and in spite of direct denials by Henry George.

In general, the press of the old parties under the issue ''to save society from mob violence" branded the organized labor behind the movement as "hordes of anarchists" and their standard bearer in the campaign, Henry George, as "marauder," an "assailant of other people's rights," a "leveller," a "robber of the poor," a "revolutionist," a "man who attacks the sacred foundation of property," a "recreant of liberty," and an "apostle of anarchy and destruction," whose purpose is "to array workingmen against millionaires."[7]

A story even was created by some San Francisco papers and readily quoted by several New York papers to the effect that Henry George had had some connection with piracy. As the tale was obviously too ridiculous to be believed, it was soon dropped.[8]

The Leader thus stood on firm ground when it pointed out that "Some papers make out Henry George to be an insane man, with a torch in one hand and a knife in the other, yelling for the rich man's blood.''[9] While the independent political movement of organized labor was so pitilessly battered by the press of old parties it was not left without critical attention by the other side, the Anarchists. The widely known German Anarchist, Johann Most, wrote in his paper Freiheit:

"George's election would not change an iota In the present social system. A man who desires to bring about an Improvement must proclaim the overthrow of all existing laws, and not the promising to carry them out, as George has done. And who is George, anyhow? Only look at the gang who are supporting him: Social quacks, Knights of Labor, Trade Unionists, school teachers, professors, priests! A fine assortment, indeed. That is sufficient for us. By a man's" company you may judge what he is himself."[10]

In this manner the independent political movement of organized labor was under a cross fire in the periodical press. From one side it was bombarded by the powerful press of the old parties, from the other by the Anarchists' paper.


At first the politicians of the old parties and their press refused to take the independent political labor movement seriously. At least, one gets such an impression from the reports in the large New York dailies on the labor meetings at which independent political action was then being discussed. But when the movement grew wider, especially when the Labor Conference was organized, the preliminary meetings of which were earnest, lively and fairly attended, and finally, when Henry George was nominated as the representative of organized labor, for whose candidacy more than 30,000 pledges were so easily secured, the local Democratic and Republican leaders became greatly alarmed. The joking mood of their press was changed to one of serious attention to the new movement of labor.


The local Democratic party was divided at that time into two main factions, Tammany Hall and the County Democracy, which quarreled with each other. Their first joint move was an attempt to bribe Henry George, not long before his formal nomination. This was attempted through the agency of William M. Ivins, then Chamberlain of the city of New York. A few days before his death Henry George made the following statement:

"Mr. Ivins insisted that I could not possibly be elected mayor of New York, no matter how many people might vote for me; that the men who voted knew nothing of the real forces that dominated New York. He said that I could not possibly be counted in. He offered in behalf of Tammany Hall and the County Democracy that if I would refuse the nomination for mayor, they would run me for congress, select a city district in which the nomination of the two was equivalent to election; that I should be at no expense whatever, but might go to Europe or anywhere I willed, and when I came back should receive a certificate of election to the House of Representatives."[11]

Henry George refused the bribe. The Democratic leaders were not afraid that Henry George could be elected, but they did not like that the movement should ''raise hell,"[12] as they termed the consequences of the near victory of labor. The Tammany Convention took place October 11. A number of delegates favored the nomination of Henry George, but the Tammany leaders paid no attention to those voices. Yet they were somewhat afraid to put forward a candidate of their own. Therefore they nominated and "steam-rolled" a man of the other faction -- the County Democracy -- Abram S. Hewitt, of the large iron manufacturing firm of Cooper, Hewitt & Company, who had been congressman from New York for years. After the County Democracy had indorsed his nomination, a joint committee consisting of the leaders of both democratic factions visited Mr. Hewitt at his own request. To this committee Mr. Hewitt read his letter of acceptance, in which he said that a new issue had been suddenly sprung upon the community. An attempt had been made to organize one class of the citizens against all other classes, and to place the government of the city in the hands of men willing to represent the special interest of the laboring class to the exclusion of the just rights of the other classes even though a large majority of all classes are owners of property, either real or personal. Any attempt upon the right of property is therefore directed by a small minority against the great majority. The injurious effects, arising from the conclusion that any considerable proportion of our people desire to substitute the idea of Anarchists, Nihilists, Communists, Socialists and mere theorists for the democratic principle of individual liberty, would react with the greatest severity upon those who depend upon their daily labor for their daily bread; that if the dreams of these theorists could be realized, the chief sufferers would be the workingmen whose condition they propose and undoubtedly hope to improve; that between capital and labor there never is, and never can be, any antagonism; they are natural and inseparable allies; but between capitalists, or those who control capital, and laborers, there may be a conflict of interests, which, like all other disputes, must be adjusted by mutual concessions, or by the operation of law, that this was the issue,

"which as I understand the action of the Democratic party in placing me in nomination, has forced its leading organizations to a patriotic union which might otherwise have been impossible. It behooves the people of this city to pass sentence of condemnation in no uncertain tones upon the effort to array class against class and to unsettle toe foundations upon which its business and its security rest."[13]

In conclusion he thanked the press for the manner in which his nomination was received.

The above issue was repeated and expanded by Mr. Hewitt at the Democratic ratification meeting, October 22, when he said in part:

"So far as my life is concerned, the riches which I have accumulated have been used in giving employment to labor, and -- let the record go down -- every dollar that I own today, without exception, is employed in giving occupation to men who are willing to work for their living. …If men worked more and talked less there would not be half the trouble. …I am told that I am a kind of millionaire and I saw it stated by Henry George … that the millionaires of the city were willing to supply an unlimited amount of money for this canvass. I have not yet seen or heard Of any of these millionaires. But if this fight is to be fought as it ought to be fought, so as to lead to a glorious victory, then every millionaire ought to put up the cash."[14]

Mr. Hewitt then went on to criticize the Republicans for taking an independent part in the campaign, thereby splitting the vote against Henry George. "There is not a man in this city who thinks that Roosevelt has any chance against him. It is not a fight between the Republicans and Democrats. This fight is between Henry George and Abram S. Hewitt."[15] (which meant between labor and capital). Mr. Hewitt blamed Theodore Roosevelt, a "rich and well-born, highly educated and absolutely honest man," for not attacking Henry George and his doctrines. "These rich Republicans and these rich millionaires -- nay, have they not at the Union League Club indorsed Mr. Roosevelt? …I am the candidate of every honest and respectable man in New York."[16]

It thus becomes obvious that Mr. Hewitt was clear sighted enough to recognize and understand the real nature of the independent political movement of organized labor. To him it was a class movement, and meant the struggle between labor and capital, taking the two latter not in the sense of the physical agents of production, but in the sense of employees and employers, or, in other words, wage earners and capitalists. He, representing the interests of the latter, being himself a big capitalist, naturally opposed the labor movement as dangerous to his class interests, and fought it hard and condemned it in harsh words. For him the class struggle between labor and capital was the issue, although for practical reasons he preferred .to put it in a different form: To save society from mob violence by Anarchists, Nihilists, Communists, Socialists and mere theorists -- one way of saving the employers' interests from the onslaught of labor. He rejected the Singletax issue and almost entirely ignored the secondary issue of political corruption which figured so prominently in the Clarendon Hall platform. He fought the battle in the campaign under his own issue "to save society!"


The Democrats invited the Republicans to unite against the labor candidate. But the Republicans, as a party, refused to do so, and nominated Theodore Roosevelt as their own candidate for mayor. As the main battle was going on between Henry George and Abram S. Hewitt, Mr. Roosevelt did not make much of a personal canvass. Most important are the interviews given out by him for the news reporters. In these he branded the labor theories as "crude, vicious and unAmerican";[17] denied that the masses of the American people were in such bad condition as the labor leaders claimed, and also, denied that there were classes in America. In reply The Leader characterized his views as a result of his ignorance. "While, he (Mr. Roosevelt) has been fighting Jake Hess for control of the Republican machine in the twenty-first district and shooting game out West, he has had no time to study social problems he … evidently knows nothing of political economy."[18]

The Democrats tried to secure votes from the Republican ranks for Mr. Hewitt, but their endeavors were not very successful. Mr. Roosevelt fell only about twenty-five thousand votes behind the usual Republican vote, a part of which went over to Henry George.


There was a small faction of Democrats which had separated from Tammany in the days of Tweed. This faction nominated their leader, Robert B. Nooney, for President of the Board of Aldermen, but the united Tammany Hall and County Democracy ignored these so-called Irving Hall Democrats and nominated Mr. Peckman as their own candidate for that office. This fact led to the endorsement of Henry George by the Irving Hall Democrats. They met in convention, October 19, nominated Rufus W. Peckman for the court of appeals, and adopted a resolution indorsing Henry George for mayor. Prior to this resolution, Henry George was asked to give his opinion on such an indorsement. He accepted it without giving any pledges, and said: "Whoever accepts me must accept me as the candidate of organized labor."[19]

A week later he addressed the Irving Hail ratification meeting, saying in part, that "We are making history in this campaign. Again, the true democracy, the party of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, is coming to the front."[20] Henry George very often referred in his speeches to the above-named former presidents as the representatives of a true democracy, to restore which he considered to be a prime necessity for the general welfare of the American nation.


At the beginning of the campaign, especially after the nomination of Henry George for mayor, there appeared, here and there in the city, Henry George Clubs. They were mainly organized by radical men of liberal professions for the purpose of studying the land problem from the standpoint of the singletax, and also to help along the political campaign of organized labor. Especially earnest in the campaign work was the Henry George Bohemian Club. The District Associations were organized for purely campaign purposes. They distributed literature and ballots, organized mass meetings, and did other necessary campaign work.

If the strength of these clubs and associations can not be compared with that of trade unions, nevertheless their help was useful for the success of the campaign.


Henry George replied in an open letter to the attack upon the labor movement made by Mr. Hewitt, and said in part as follows:

"The great bugbear in your mind seems, however, to be that this is a class movement, which, because it is a class movement, is a direct attack upon social order . …You have heard so much of the working class that you evidently forget that the working class is in reality not a class, but the mass, and that any political movement in which they engage is not that of one class against other classes, but as one English statesman has happily phrased it. a movement of the 'masses against the classes.' I do not stand as the candidate of handworkers alone. Among the men who have given me the most truly democratic nomination given to an American citizen In our time are not only handworkers, but workingmen of all kinds -- editors, reporters, teachers, clergymen, artists, authors, physicians, store-keepers, merchants -- in short, representatives of all classes of men who earn their living by the exertion of their hand and head."[21]

Henry George then proposed to Hewitt to discuss jointly before the public the issues involved in the campaign. Mr. Hewitt in his written answer to the above letter of Henry George, October 19, rejected the challenge on the ground that he had sufficient trust in the voters of New York without any personal canvass. He then criticised the singletax theory, calling it "a system of downright robbery."

To this letter Henry George replied, October 20, attacking existing evils, especially the corruption exercised by politicians, and again stating that the labor movement was not a class movement at all. ''It is, in truth, a movement against the domination of a class."[22]

Mr. Hewitt in his next letter, October 21, once more stated that the political movement of labor was "an unmistakable effort to array class against class, the direful consequences of which no man knows better than yourself. In your frantic desire for office you seem not to hesitate to wreck society to its foundation." Then Mr. Hewitt, in an indirect way, defended the politicians, the corruption of which Henry George attacked. In conclusion Mr. Hewitt stated that "revolution, confiscation and robbery (meaning the singletax) are not less ruinous to honest labor when they are disguised as a fantastic combination of poverty and progress."[23]

In his final open letter Henry George rejected the personal attacks upon him and disclaimed responsibility for the incorrect quotations from his speeches. He regretted that Mr. Hewitt in his letters had ignored the question of political corruption and that he had refused to discuss jointly the issues at a public meeting.

Such an open and lively exchange of letters between two leading candidates greatly helped to arouse public interest in the coming election, and this was a considerable gain for the labor movement, since the Democratic party hardly profited anything by it. Mr. Hewitt obviously was at a loss on two points: when he ignored the political corruption known almost to everybody, and when he declined to discuss the issues before a public meeting. Henry George was shrewd enough in his letters to return again and again to these weak points in his opponent's letters and to emphasize them. The general impression which one gets from the comparison of the letters of both sides is that the moral strength was on the side of Henry George. His weak points were that he could not force the singletax as the main issue of the movement and that he did not understand the nature of the movement at the head of which he happened to be.


At the beginning of the campaign Mr. Hewitt declined to make any personal canvass. But soon after seeing the active and offensive campaign led by his main opponent, Henry George, and especially after his open correspondence with the latter, he decided to go out and make public speeches. The Democratic meetings lacked enthusiasm and were not numerous. Only one was held in the open air.

In his public speeches Mr. Hewitt added only some minor points to those treated in the open correspondence. At the Tammany Hall ratification meeting, October 26, at which a resolution was adopted declaring that the duty of the Democratic party was to overthrow the labor movement at the polls,[24] Mr. Hewitt in his speech defended the American two-party system, and blamed Henry George for creating a third, unnecessary and even harmful for American liberty. He then defended the Tammany Hall people, saying: "You have known Tammany Hall for many years; and did they ever drive men to the polls like slaves to vote for any man? What is the penalty of disobedience? They are never more to be tolerated in the society of their fellow-workingmen."[25] After this he returned to the issue of class movement, criticizing Henry George for not accepting it: "He tells me there is no class movement. When I charged him that he said that it was a class movement he denied it."[28]

At the meeting at Steinway Hall, October 29, a resolution was adopted beginning with the following statement:

"In the coming election, by the candidacy of Henry George the business interests of the city are menaced; the security of property is threatened, and subversion of law and order is openly advocated under specious appeals to the passion and prejudice of class."[27]

In his speech Mr. Hewitt pointed out that the differences in capacities and wealth among the people were due to the laws of Divine Providence and, therefore, the preaching to one class the doctrine of hate ought not to take place. In his speech at a meeting of Germans, on the same evening, Mr. Hewitt characterized the labor movement in the following terms: "The demon of discord, hate, anarchy, and the enemy of all mankind threatens and the anarchists and communists are rearing their heads."[28] But he expressed hope that Henry George would not defeat "the purposes of the Almighty."

How much Mr. Hewitt gained by his public speeches is not easy to say. Although his meetings were far from crowded, the press carried his speeches far and wide. "While he did not add anything of importance to the thoughts expressed in his letters, nevertheless he apparently succeeded in frightening the business men with the labor movement, which to them was daily assuming more and more alarming proportions.


Edward McGlynn was born in New York of Irish parentage. He studied in the College of The Propaganda at Rome for priesthood, after which he was ordained at first as assistant and afterwards as parish priest of St. Stephen's Church, New York. He was converted to the singletax theory by reading Progress and Poverty. Later he met Henry George and they became intimate friends. McGlynn was a strong personality and an impressive orator. In the Singletax agitation he came, in importance, next to Henry George.

At the Chickering Hall meeting, October 1, McGlynn delivered an eloquent address, strongly indorsing the candidacy of Henry George. After that, the United Democracy attempted to create a prejudice among Protestants, saying that the Catholic Church, through Henry George, was seeking to get control of New York politics. This rumor did not have any effect. The Protestant supporters of Henry George were quite numerous and knew the real situation. Realizing soon this fact, the United Democracy undertook to make it appear that the Catholic Church was opposed to Henry George, and that Fr. McGlynn had withdrawn his support from the labor movement. To refute this rumor, Fr. McGlynn gave out a lengthy interview in which he spoke strongly in favor of Henry George and his land reform scheme. In regard to Henry George he said:

"Large as his head is, he has, if anything, a heart bigger than his head. It is the wonderfully humanitarian, charitable, and, I may say, with all reverence, Christlike character of the man's heart that has given the peculiar bent and direction to his genius. …It is this that makes him the prophet and the apostle of the magnificent gospel of justice to the poor, to the disinherited, to the workingmen (to all who work, whether with their heads or with their hands), to all those who have to pay rent to landlords … I believe that Mr. George is destined to be, and at no distant day, the President of the United' States."[29]

This interview evoked great alarm among the Tammany Hall people. Joseph J. O'Donohue, chairman of Tammany Hall's Committee on Resolutions, wrote a letter to the Right Rev. Mon-signor Thomas S. Preston, Vicar-General of the Catholic Church, asking from him information if it was true that the Catholic clergy were in favor of the candidacy of Henry George. The Vicar-General answered, October 25, stating that there was no question as to the position of the Catholic clergy in New York:

"The great majority of the Catholic clergy in this city are opposed to the candidacy of Mr. George. They think his principles unsound and unsafe, and contrary to the teachings of the church. I have not met one among the priests of his archdiocese who would not deeply regret the election of Mr. George to any position of influence. His principles, logically carried out, would prove the ruin of the workingmen he professes to befriend. …And although we never interfere directly in elections, we would not wish now to be misunderstood at a time when the best interests of society may be in danger."[30]

This letter was circulated in front of Catholic churches and among Catholic worshippers on their return from service. The Tammany Hall press and politicians saw to it that the letter was made very widely known. Its sole purpose was to support the Tammany people as against the efforts of organized labor and their candidate, Henry George. The conflict between Henry George and the Catholic Church afterwards grew much wider, as we shall see in the next chapter.


The mass meetings organized by labor organizations and their leaders for campaigning purposes differed in character and size from those of the other parties. They were numerous and usually large. Most of them were held in the open air, usually on the street corners. From the system by which one speaker followed another, speaking at several meeting places in a night, the labor campaign got its nickname of the "tail-board-campaign." The common people, women and men, gathered in hundreds and often in thousands around a place from which the shifting speakers addressed the crowd.

This was a real educational campaign. Labor conditions, political corruption, democracy, singletax and other such topics were widely discussed. After every address some questions were put by the listeners and answered by the speaker. After his acceptance speech, Henry George delivered his first campaign speech before a densely packed mass meeting at Chickering Hall, October 22. He explained at length his singletax theory and existing conditions under the private ownership of land. In reference to the latter he stated: "Here is the primary injustice -- the root of all that is evil in what is commonly called the conflict between labor and capital."[31] But if the singletax should be realized then it would "more than anything else, promote general prosperity, raise wages, and bring about a condition of general comfort."[32] After this lengthy and eloquent speech the listeners asked some questions. Upon the question what had the theories of Henry George to do with the campaign, the latter answered: ''They have this to do with the campaign: Mr. Hewitt says that I ought to be beaten on account of my theories -- that I am a mere theorist. My election will forward those theories simply by increasing the discussion on them."[33]

Among the campaign stories manufactured by the United Democracy against Henry George during the last few days of the campaign was one to the effect that T. V. Powderly, then the General Master Workman of the Knights of Labor, was opposed to the election of Henry George. At the beginning of the campaign, and also at this time his absence was easily explained as an indication of his opposition to Henry George. When this rumor reached Mr. Powderly he immediately telegraphed to his friends in New York to call a mass-meeting, which he wanted to address. This meeting was called on the eve of the election of November 1. Mr. Powderly spoke very favorably for the independent political action, condemned political, corruption, and strongly indorsed the candidacy of Henry George. ''Vote early tomorrow morning for yourself, your family, your country, and your God, in the person of Henry George."[34]


Election day was the second of November. In round numbers the votes cast were as follows: For Mr. Hewitt 90,000, for Henry George 68,000, and for Mr. Roosevelt 60,000.

There were many reports that Henry George won the election but was counted out, and that numbers of voters were bought by the Tammany people. Be this as it may, the main interest lies in the question, who, of what social position, were those sixty-eight thousand voters who stood for the labor candidate in the election? There is no doubt that the vast majority of them were members of labor organizations, wage earners, and that a comparatively small number were men of liberal profession and a yet smaller number were radical merchants and manufacturers. It was really a political movement of organized labor -- a class movement in its nature, helped along by a small number of outside sympathizers.

Although the campaign did not end in formal victory, the unexpectedly large labor vote created enthusiasm, confidence in the united and organized efforts by labor and bright hope for the future. It was a remarkable and even a unique campaign in the history of American politics. In a short period of time, without money, press influence, and proper political organization, to unite diverse elements, diverse not only as regards occupation, nationality, culture and language, but also philosophies and political belief, and nearly to defeat, in a clean and honest way, both rich and powerful old parties headed by trained politicians -- was not such a campaign record-making? And truly previous to the campaign of 1886 and after it, till our time, there has not been in American municipal elections such a political campaign undertaken by organized labor, united into one body and one effort, except, it may be, the more recent Milwaukee and Los Angeles campaigns where labor fought under the leadership of the Socialists.

The success of the campaign in 1886 is explained by the existing industrial, political and legal conditions -- by the crying need that labor should better oppressive conditions, by the unifying educational work done by the Central Labor Union in the previous years, and by the popular and powerful leadership of Henry George, whose non-partisan attitude created a possibility for diverse elements to unite under his leadership. A union creates feeling of solidarity, self-confidence, and a hope for success, and this psychological factor is one of prime importance in mass movements. The success of the campaign also had purely practical beneficial results. A change in the attitude of the parties in power toward the demands for better labor laws took place after the campaign. If one compares the spirit and purpose of the labor laws enacted in the previous four or five years with the spirit and purpose enacted in 1887, one finds a marked difference. While the former laws meant a "grand legal round-up" of labor, the laws of 1887 were, though vaguely, directly to protect labor. For instance, there was enacted at Albany, in 1887, a law providing for adjustment of disputes between employers and employees and authorizing the creation of Boards of Mediation and Arbitration. Besides, there was enacted in 1887 a law for tenement house regulation, a law providing for the labeling and marketing of convict-made goods, a perfected mechanics' lien law, a law regulating employment of women and children, a law regulating the hours of labor on street, surface and elevated railroads, and finally the notorious Penal Code was amended by a law prohibiting employers, singly or combined, to coerce employees not to join a labor organization.[35]

Undoubtedly such a change in the attitude of the lawmakers was, at least in part, due to the impressive labor strength demonstrated in the campaign of 1886.

The leaders of the campaign derived great encouragement from its successful results, and soon after the campaign they began to build up a permanent political organization, preparing for the next national campaign.


  1. The Public, Nov. 3, 1911, p. 1129.
  2. The Leader was recognized as "the organ of the Central Labor Union" In New York. No other organization was to control The Leader. -- The Leader, Nov. 8, 1886, p. 1.
  3. Ibid.
  4. The Leader, Oct. 20, 1886, p. 2.
  5. A paper very ably edited by Patrick Ford for the Irish cause in Ireland and the Irish immigrants in America. At the beginning of the mayoralty campaign the Irish World strongly supported it.
  6. The Life of Henry George, New York, 1904. p. 410.
  7. The Life of Henry George, New York, 1904. p. 476.
  8. Ibid., p. 477.
  9. The Leader, Oct. 20, 1886, p. 2.
  10. The Leader, Oct. 28, 1886, p. 1.
  11. Published reply to statement made in the newspapers by A. S. Hewitt, Oct., 1897. The Life of Henry George, New York. 1904, p. 463.
  12. Ibid.
  13. George-Hewitt Campaign, New York. 1886, pp. 31-37.
  14. Ibid., 39-42.
  15. Ibid., p. 42.
  16. Ibid., p. 43.
  17. The Leader, Oct. 28. 1886. p. 3.
  18. Ibid., Oct. 26. 1886, p. 2.
  19. George-Hewitt Campaign, p. 125.
  20. Ibid., p. 126.
  21. Ibid., pp. 46-50.
  22. Ibid., p. 59.
  23. Ibid., p. 67.
  24. Ibid., p. 91.
  25. Ibid., p. 93.
  26. Ibid.
  27. Ibid., p. 96.
  28. Ibid., p. 102.
  29. Ibid., pp. 129-132.
  30. Ibid., p. 133.
  31. Ibid., p. 79.
  32. Ibid.
  33. Ibid., p. 88.
  34. Ibid., p. 120.
  35. Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Statistics of Labor of the State of New York, 1887, pp. 736-776.