socialistic argument." They say, "the laborers on the average replace the value of their wages for the capitalist class in the first few hours of their day's work; the exchange value of the goods produced in the remaining hours of the day's work constitutes so much embodied labor which is unpaid; and this unpaid labor, so embodied in articles of utility, the capitalist class, the factory owners, the farmers, the bankers, the brokers, the shopkeepers and their hangers-on, the landlords, divide amongst themselves in the shape of profits, interests, discounts, commissions, rent, etc." Is it at all true that wages and other outlay by the capitalist are replaced in the first few hours? Are not the large fortunes more usually the result of exploitation on a very large scale, a small daily profit being secured on each workman? And without the capitalist where would be the workshop, the plant, or the raw material? It would be far better if, in co-operative production, workmen would be their own capitalists; but surely the owner of the capital, without which the exploitation cannot take place, is entitled to some reward. If not, what becomes the first inducement to economy and enterprise? How is the capitalist to be persuaded to put his savings into fixed capital as factory and plant? Why should he, beforehand, purchase raw material on which labor may be employed, and the value of which raw material may diminish? Why should he subsist labor while so employed and take the risk of loss in exchanging the article produced, unless he is to have some profit? And why should not the farmer be sustained by the laborer if that farmer grows the food on which he subsists while working? Why should not the shopkeeper be rewarded for bringing ready to the laborer articles which would be otherwise difficult in the highest degree for the laborer to procure? If the laborer was obliged to procure his own raw material, to fashion it into an exchangeable commodity, and then had to find the person with whom he might exchange it, there are many to whom the raw material would be unaccessible, and more who would lose much. of the profits of their labor in fruitless efforts to exchange. But for capital, fixed and circulating, there are many natural objects which would be utterly inaccessible to labor; many more which could only be reached and dealt with on a very limited scale. But for capital, the laborer would often be unable to exist until the object had an exchangeable value, or until some one was found ready with an equivalent article and desiring to exchange, and

the banker, the broker, the shopkeeper, though they are, unfortunately, sometimes too greedy for gain, may and do facilitate the progress of labor, and would not and could not do so without the incentive of profit.

It is too true that "wage" is often much too low, and that the conditions of labor are often oppressive, and to meet this I urge the workers in each trade to join the unions already existing, and to form new unions, so that the combined knowledge and protection of the general body of workers may be at the service of the weakest and most ignorant. It is for this that I obtained from the House of Commons last February the establishment of a labor statistical department under the Board of Trade, so that careful and reliable statistics of the value of labor and cost of living may be easily accessible to the poorest laborers. I would further urge the more thorough experiment in, and establishment of, co-operative productive societies in every branch of manufacture, so that the laborers, directly furnishing their own capital, as well as their own industry, may not only increase the profit result of labor to the laborer, but may also afford at least a reasonable indication of the possible profit realized by capitalists engaged in the same kind of industries. I would also increase wage (if not in amount, at any rate in its purchasing power) by diminishing the national and local expenditure, especially the national expenditure for warlike purposes, thus decreasing the cost of the necessaries of life. I would, so far as Great Britain is concerned, try to shift the pressing burden of taxation from labor more on to land, and on to the very large inherited accumulations of wealth.

Socialism is dangerous in England, because it claims to be revolutionary in an age and in a country where the most extensive reforms have been peacefully effected during the past fifty years, and where the enormously wide extension of political power gives opportunity for the acceleration of the many reforms yet required. Socialism is dangerous here, for its present advocacy is hysterical, not practical. While I do not believe that Socialism can make the revolution its advocates menace, I do believe it may make disorder, turmoil, riot, and disturbance. Socialism, as advocated by the Social Democrats, is especially dangerous, because it furnishes excuse to reaction, and gives occasion for the possible restriction of the right of public meeting; a right which has so much aided political progress in this country during the present century. I

may, perhaps, be permitted to terminate this article by repeating, with very slight variation, the words I used on April 17th, 1884, at the close of my debate with Mr. H. M. Hyndman, the elected representative of the Social Democratic Federation, at which debate fully 5,000 persons were present.

You say you desire revolution-you say you are clamoring for it. These are the words you use. You say: "We are urging it on;" and I say it is the duty of every honest man to delay and prevent revolution. Revolution, if it must come, is terrible; if it must come, it is horrible; revolution means ruined homes, it leaves behind the memory of bloody deeds. I speak for the English people, which through generations of pain and toil gradually has climbed towards liberty, the liberty of which they have won some glimpses, and towards which they are climbing still. I speak for the people-who are ready to suffer much if they may redeem somewhat, who know that the errors of yesterday cannot be sponged away in a moment to-day, and who would try slowly, gradually, to mold, to modify, to build, but who refuse to destroy, and who declare that those who preach international Socialism, and talk vaguely about explosives, are playing into the hands of our enemies, and giving our enemies an excuse to coerce us.

C. BRADLAUGH.

THE PROGRESS OF MINNESOTA.

A STATEMENT is desired of the progress of Minnesota since the civil war. This period so nearly coincides with its existence as a State that an extension of the sketch may be pardonable.

A territorial government was established for Minnesota by act of Congress of March 3, 1849, under which the first Governor, Alexander Ramsey, entered upon his duties June 23, 1849. On the 26th of February, 1857, Congress passed an act authorizing the formation of a constitution for admission into the Union. A constitution was accordingly adopted and the officers provided for therein elected on the 13th of October following, and upon the formal admission of the State by Congress, May 11, 1858, the "North Star" rose upon our national azure.

Minnesota lies between the parallels 43° 30′ and 49° of lati

tude. Its western boundary is cut by the ninety-seventh meridian, but without great divergence, and its very irregular eastern boundary gives it an average breadth of about five degrees. Its area is 53,943,379 acres, of which about 3,608,000 acres are covered by the waters of more than 7,500 interior lakes. It occupies the centre of the great interior plain of the continent, containing the head waters of the Mississippi, flowing into the Gulf of Mexico; of the Red River of the North, whose waters seek the Arctic Ocean, and the sources of streams which, through the great lakes and the St. Lawrence River, reach the Atlantic. The head of steamboat navigation, also, in all of these water-ways, is in the North Star State.

The population of Minnesota, according to the earliest census, taken June 11, 1849, was 4,513. By the enumeration of 1857, preparatory to admission, it was 150,037. The financial disasters and prostration of business in 1857 checked the growth and prosperity of the young State, and the war of the rebellion drained it of men. The massacres by the Sioux Indians in 1862, previous to their

final removal from the State, frightened away the timid of the settlers, and a storm of unexampled severity in January, 1871, was used to prejudice us with the seekers of new homes, by agents of competing areas in favor of which degrees of latitude were thought to testify. But the following census figures of population show an increase marvelous as a whole, and in some periods almost unparalleled: In 1860, 172,023; 1865, 250,099; 1870, 439,706; 1875, 597,407; 1880, 780,773; 1885, 1,117,798.

Of the total population in 1880, 513,097 were born in the United States, while of the foreign born, over 25 per cent. were German, 9 per cent. were Irish, 40 per cent. Scandinavian, less than 5 per cent. British, and about 8 per cent. native of other European countries. This mixture of foreign blood in the proportions above shown tends to the maintenance in perfection of a stock drawn originally from almost the same sources, rather than to its deterioration.

How are these people thriving?

The total valuation of the property in the State, as assessed for taxation and excluding all statutory exemptions, was, in certain years convenient for comparison, as follows: In 1849, $514,936; in 1860, $36,743,408; in 1880, $258,055,543; in 1885, $399,789,766; and in 1886, $458,424,777. The above includes no railroad property, all of which is exempt from assessment, the railroad companies paying to the State a percentage of their gross earnings in lieu of all other taxes. This percentage amounted to $642,258 for the fiscal year ending July 31, 1886.

The wealth of the people per capita was, in 1849, $114.10; in 1860, $213.59; in 1880, $330.51; and in 1885, $357.65.

The number of persons of both sexes engaged in all gainful avocations enumerated in the federal census of 1880 was 255,125. Of these 131,535 were in agriculture, 59,452 in professional and personal services, 24,349 in trade and transportation, and 39,789 in manufacturing, mechanical, and mining pursuits. Some indications will be quoted of progress in all of these occupations, except those of the second group, the prosperity of which, as a whole, is measurable by that of the other classes.

The whole number of farms in 1860 was 18,181, containing on the average 149 acres; in 1880, 92,386 farms averaged 145 acres. The acres of improved land in farms in 1860 was 556,250; in 1880, 7,246,693. The unimproved land was 79.5 per cent. of the