In the ordinary office the clients will be divided somewhat into classes, i.e., men of large affairs, the average run of business men, retired business men, and men who are not in business, and women; each class requiring different treatment. The man of large affairs will resent familiarity, while he will have contempt for cringing to his wealth or power, though he may have a certain amount of vanity which may be successfully appealed to.

The ordinary run of business men are inclined to be respectful, and they will be grateful for a little unbending upon the part of their legal adviser; but too much familiarity upon his part will cause the loss of respect.

Women, and men who are not in business and who have a limited knowledge of business methods, require careful treatment. To them, going to a lawyer's office is a solemn occasion, and the business which makes the visit necessary is, in their estimation, of the greatest importance. They doubtless have made many inquiries about the lawyer upon whom they propose to confer the favour of a call, and have more or less doubt as to whether he is fully capable of handling their business in the proper manner, and whether his charges will be reasonable. With people of this class great patience and tact is necessary. Their fears must be dispelled and their confidence secured. To them, their troubles are very real and the importance of their case very great. To treat them as though their matters are unimportant will be fatal to any prospect of securing them as clients; and a young lawyer can have no better or helpful friends than clients of this class, if he can please them and gain their confidence.

In this connection it should be remembered that to advise intelligently one should be a good listener. Advice given without knowledge of all the facts may lead to serious. results.

Clients as a rule are anxious to tell all the details of their troubles, many of which may be unimportant; but usually the easiest way to get at the facts is to let them talk. It makes them feel better, and they will think more of the lawyer if he lets them go on, than they would if he cut them short. Even then it may be necessary to question the client closely as to details which to him may seem to be of no importance, or as having no bearing on the case, but which

may really be of very great value in enabling the lawyer to form a correct opinion.

Young lawyers are somewhat diffident about examining authorities in the presence of clients; they feel that by so doing they appear to be ignorant of the law applicable to the case and will lose the confidence of the client. This is a mistake. An opinion should never be given without a clear understanding of the law applicable to the facts under consideration. There should be no hesitation about consulting authorities in presence of the client if by so doing the questions involved can be settled at once. If more extended research is required the client should be so advised and the opinion given later.

The lawyer should be the dictator as regards the bringing of suits or the course of procedure to be followed in matters placed in his hands. He should not be obstinate simply to have his own way, but he should in every case determine, after careful consideration, what course should be pursued in a given case, and then follow that course, unless he becomes convinced that some other course is better. He should not permit himself to be forced into commencing legal proceedings in cases where the facts do not warrant his so doing, even though his client insists upon it. He should not allow himself to be used as an instrument of malicious oppression, extortion, or blackmail. His first and paramount duty is to himself, and he has the right to decline any case which does not appear to be founded on right and justice, or the object of which appears to be the use of the Courts and their machinery for improper purposes, or which will tend to injure his reputation.

A lawyer should never slight his work. He should do his best in all cases and under all circumstances. He should never commence an action until he is sure which is the best form of action to be adopted. He should be sure that every step is properly taken and at the right time, that the proper parties are joined, and that his pleadings are correct as to form and scope. He should never go into Court without full preparation.

In the office he should see that everything is properly done. That his correspondence is kept up promptly, that every legal instrument is properly drafted and executed; that contracts, wills, and other instruments fully and clearly express the terms, conditions, and intentions of the parties,

so that no necessity will ever arise for a judicial interpretation of the instrument to ascertain its meaning, scope, or effect. He should see that his office is kept neat and orderly, and that his employees are neat, orderly, and polite to clients. He should see that his books of account and records are as accurately kept as those of a well-ordered business establishment. He should make promptness and despatch the rule of his office, and not tolerate procrastination or delay. He should keep his appointments to the minute, and never make an appointment which he is not able to meet, nor make a promise which he is not reasonably sure he will be able to fulfil.

In his dealings with the Courts his duty demands the strictest honesty and good faith. His intercourse with his brethren of the Bar should be governed by considerations of mutual forbearance, accommodation, and fairness.

His duty to the public demands that he should be a good citizen, always ready to lend his aid in promoting everything which will tend to the maintenance of good government and the correction of existing evils.

His private as well as his public and professional life should be above reproach.

THE TAXATION OF LAND VALUES.

BY LOUIS F. POST.

One of the methods of raising public revenues is by land. value taxation.

Land value taxation is any tax levied on landowners in proportion to the value of their land, irrespective of its improvements.

In most countries land value taxes are familiar enough in connection with other taxes. This is so in the United States, where real estate taxes are (a) in part taxes according to the value of improvements, and (b) in part taxes according to the value of land.

Land value taxation may thus supply (a) a greater or less. proportion of the public revenues, the rest being obtained from taxes on improvements, personal property, incomes,

business licenses, and so on; or (b) it may be exclusive, public revenues being raised from no other source.

When land value taxation is exclusive, it is appropriately enough called "the single tax," meaning only one tax and that upon land values.

The single tax (exclusive land value taxation) may vary in degree, from (a) a rate that will supply revenues sufficient only for the bare needs of government, to (b) a rate high enough to appropriate to public use approximately the entire annual value of land.

The annual needs of a government might coincide approximately with the annual value of the land within its jurisdiction, in which case there would be no practical difference between a land value tax sufficient merely for public needs, and one high enough to appropriate approximately all annual land values. Theoretically, however, the difference is to be observed; for there is a difference in theory and there might be in practice.

We may make the following enumeration of different kinds or degrees of land value taxation:

1. Land value taxation, together with taxation on improvements and personal property. This is commonly known as the "general property tax."

2. Land value taxation, together with taxation on improvements, personal property being disregarded or exempt. This is commonly known as the real estate tax.

3. Land value taxation, to the exclusion of all other revenue taxes, but limited to the needs of government. This may be distinguished as the "single tax limited."

4. Land value taxation, whether exclusively such or not, which begins with a low rate or none on land of moderate value, and increases progressively in rate on land of higher values, with a view to encouraging small holdings and discouraging large ones, is known as the "progressive land value tax."

5. Land value taxation, to the exclusion of all other revenue taxes, and to the full rental value approximately of the land. This might be called simply the "single tax."

Land value taxation to the exclusion of all other revenue taxes, but limited to the needs of government, was proposed by Henry George in "Progress and Poverty" in 1879, as the best known fiscal method, and one that would moreover, by force of its own excellence for revenue purposes, de

velop into the simplest means of securing to the community as a whole the value of land, and to each individual the value of his work, thereby at once supplying abundant public revenues and settling the labour question on the basis of justice. Henry George expressed the idea in these words: "Abolish all taxation save that upon land values.”

This proposal, long known as "the single tax," is coming to be better and more favourably known as " land value taxation." Under its operation all classes of workers, whether manufacturers, merchants, bankers, professional men, clerks, mechanics, farmers, farm hands, or other working classes, would, as such, be wholly exempt from taxation.

It is only as men own land that they would be taxed, the tax of each being in proportion, not to the area, but to the value of his land.

And no one would be compelled to pay a higher tax than others if his land were improved or used while theirs was not, nor if his were better improved or better used than theirs. The value of its improvements would not be considered in estimating the value of a holding; site value alone would govern. If a site rose in the market, the tax would proportionately increase; if it fell, the tax would proportionately diminish.

Land value taxation, therefore, when carried to the point of the single tax (whether limited or not) may be concisely defined as a tax upon land alone, in the ratio of value and irrespective of its improvements or its use.

To perceive that land value taxation would justly measure the value of public benefits which every individual respectively enjoys, we have only to consider that the mass of individuals everywhere and now, in paying for the land they use, actually pay for public benefits in proportion to what they receive.

He who would enjoy those benefits must use land where the benefits can be enjoyed. He cannot, for instance, carry land from where government is poor to where it is good; neither can he carry it from where the benefits of good government are few or enjoyed with difficulty to where they are many and fully enjoyed. He must rent or buy land. where the benefits of government are available, or forego them. And unless he buys or rents where they are greatest or most available, he must forego them in degree. Consequently, if he would work or live where the benefits of