question of their maintenance. Shall the services rendered be charged for, and if so, at what rates? We say the law should safeguard the right to own property by prohibiting the sale of service at less than its full and entire cost. The Municipal Code Commission of Ohio said, in the bill it prepared for enactment, that deficits should be paid by a tax levy. Some say the service should be free and its entire cost should be paid by a tax levy. If anyone doubts that this is an attack upon the right to own property let him calculate what per cent of his property would be taken from him every year by the power of taxation if the municipality in which he owns property owned and operated the waterworks, gasworks, electric lighting works, street railroads and telephone systems, rendered all service free, and covered the entire costs of ownership and operation by a tax levy. No property owner can resist the collection of a tax legally levied. If a service of one utility can be rendered partly free by being sold at less than its true and entire cost, it may be rendered entirely free. If one service may be so rendered all services may be. If the first attack upon the right to own property is not successfully resisted other attacks will be successfully made. If one per cent of the value of property may be legally confiscated to pay for services rendered to private users at less than cost, additional per cents may be so taken. Does not every per cent so taken, to that extent, destroy the right to own property and weaken the tenure by which the balance of the property is held?

A FREE WATER EXAMPLE.

We copy the following item from Municipal Ownership for June, 1900:

"At Santa Rosa, Cal., water is furnished to the people by the municipal plant free of charge. The operating expenses and fixed charges of the plant are covered by a general tax levy of 261⁄2 cents on the $100 of valuation."

Is not this a direct attack upon the right to own property? What compensation does a property owner receive for the 261⁄2 cents taken out of every $100 of the valuation of his property? If this portion of private property can be legally confiscated to pay for a water service rendered to a private user, without charge, may not other portions be confiscated to pay for other services so rendered?

The courts must render decisions according to the law. Constitutions are changed and laws are enacted in accordance with the expressed will of a majority of the people. The only defense for the right to own private property is in a correctly educated sense of justice on the part of all the people.

PROFITING BY EXPERIENCE.

Some twelve or fifteen years ago the people of California were very much wrought up by the mortgage taxation question. The problem was studied thoroughly and a system was devised which was designed and for some years was supposed to compel the money lender to pay the tax. This is one of the cases, familiar to careful students of economic problems, where an attempt was made to befriend the debtor by attacking the creditor. But it did not work as expected. When sufficient experience had been gained to admit of a statistical study of the effects of the law, it was found in actual transactions the borrower not only. paid the tax, but paid more for the use of money on account of the intrusion of the tax law requirements than he would have paid under normal conditions. Experience caused a reaction in public opinion and a call for the rescinding of this legislative interference with the freedom of contracts between debtor and creditor. At the recent election an amendment to the constitution was submitted to a vote of the people, exempting public bonds from taxation. "California Municipalities," for October, says, very correctly: "We gain nothing now by this form of taxation and the exemption of bonds will reduce interest." At this writing we do not know the result of the vote on the amendment.

'ACQUIRING PUBLIC PROPERTY WITHOUT MORTGAGING TAXPAYERS'

PROPERTY.

We ask attention to articles in this issue under the titles of "A Plan for Acquiring Public Service Utilities Without Mortgaging Taxpayers' Property," by Bird S. Coler, controller of New York; and "New York's Dock," editorial, Chicago Tribune, being a review of Mr. Coler's article.

The suggestion that municipal bonds, issued for the purpose of acquiring public service utilities, should be exempted from statements of municipal indebtedness, made to determine the debt incurring capacity of a municipality, first came from advocates of the municipal ownership of such utilities. They were driven to this position because most municipal governments found other ways in which to bring the municipal debts up to the limit. This created a serious obstacle to carrying out plans for the municipal ownership and operation of waterworks, gas works, electric lighting plants and street railroads. This obstacle, it was supposed, could be overcome in but one of two ways.

First, by securing changes in the constitutional provisions or statutes by which the debt limit was fixed. This it was seen would be a slow and difficult process, and of doubtful success, because such provisions are designed for the protection of tax

payers, and it is fair to assume taxpayers would resist any changes in them that would tend to weaken their security.

Second, by securing legislation which would exempt bonds issued for the purpose of acquiring revenue producing properties from statements of indebtedness made to determine the municipal debt limit. This proposal was first formally put forward by the "Committee on Municipal Program" of the National Municipal League, in a report made at the annual meeting of the League, Indianapolis, November, 1898. It was repeated by this committee in a modified form in its. revised report, which was adopted by the League at its annual meeting, Columbus, Ohio, November, 1899. It was incorporated in the bill drafted by the Ohio Municipal Code Commission, which failed of enactment by the Ohio Legislature of 1900.

When this proposition was made by the committee of the National Municipal League, we at once took issue with the way in which the purpose was to be accomplished, and published our reasons in a pamphlet under the title of "Powers of Municipalities," which was issued within a week after the adjournment of the Indianapolis meeting. We have since pressed our objections to the plan, as presented, upon the attention of taxpayers and business men at every favoring opportunity, and on every occasion have pointed. out a way in which the object sought can be attained. without jeopardizing the security now given to tax