tent citizens in charge. While an increase in the number and importance of municipal functions may have a tendency to induce men of a higher type to become public officials, we do not believe that this of itself will accomplish municipal reform. We are unable to recommend municipal-ownership as a political pan

acea.

"To sum up, certain of the more important of our conculsions are:

"First-Public utilities, whether in public or in private hands, are best conducted under a system of legalized and ⚫ regulated monopoly.

"Second-Public utilities in which the sanitary motive largely enters should be operated by the public.

"Third-The success of municipal operation of public utilities depends upon the existence in the city of a high capacity for municipal government.

"Fourth-Franchise grants to private corporations should be terminable after a fixed period and meanwhile subject to purchase at a fair value.

"Fifth-Municipalities should have power to enter the field of municipalownership upon popular vote under reasonable regulation.

"Sixth-Private companies operating public utilities should be subject to public regulation and examination under a system of uniform records and accounts and of full publicity.

"Seventh-The Committee takes no position on the question of the general expediency of either private or publicownership. The question must be solved by each municipality in the light of local conditions. What may be possible in one locality may not be in another."

In his dissenting opinion Mr. Walton Clark fails to recognize the success of municipal-ownership, even in the best public plants of Great Britain. He states his belief that "the condition of the British people, individually and collectively, has not been improved by

the municipalization of the industries we have investigated." With all due rerespect to our genial colleague we ask: Is it not strange that the British people do not know of this failure of municipalownership to improve their condition? They think their condition has been greatly improved by municipalization of public utilities, and in consequence they keep on municipalizing just as if they were being benefited by it. They have lived right there in Great Britain under former company managements, and under the succeeding municipal managements, but they have not discovered this most important fact which our colleague was able to discover during our brief visit.

There are some of course in Great Britain who oppose municipal-ownership; some of them hold a theory that the government should be only a policeman, and they are consistently opposed to public-schools, parks, fire departments, water-works, post-office, etc. Some are socialists of the kind who object to municipal operation of public utilities because they want a revolution, and desire to have things remain as bad as possible in order that the people may be finally driven to desperation, and sweep away the whole of the existing industrial system at a stroke. Some are persons opposed to socialism, who confuse municipal-ownership with it, failing to distinguish the public-ownership of public-service monopolies from the demand for government-ownership of all means of production and distribution. Some are men who are connected with existing companies, or held stock in the former companies displaced by public-ownership. It is not easy for a man who holds stock in a public-service company to see the benefits of municipalownership, at least in the field of service to which his company belongs. We found some owners and managers of private lighting systems in Great Britain who did not believe in municipal operation of gas and electric light plants, but saw no objection to municipal operation

of tramways, and we found some high officials of private tramways who saw no reason why municipalities should not operate lighting systems, but were firmly convinced that municipal operation of street-railways was a great mistake.

It is much easier for the ordinary stockless man who rides in a better car on half the fare he used to pay the company, or the employé who works 54 to 60 hours a week instead of 77, 84 or 91 under company control, and gets more pay besides, and a share in electing the City Council which manages the road-it is much easier for such people to realize the benefits of municipalownership than for those who are directly or indirectly interested in public-service corporations.

The effect of the visit to Great Britain was to very greatly strengthen publicownership opinin in the commission. Mr. Clark in one of his statements has referred to "the members of the committee who remain municipalizers," implying that the investigation has diminished the public-ownership sentiment among the members. This is an error. The reverse is true. Without exception, those who were "municipalizers" before they went to Great Britain came back still more thoroughly convinced of the value of municipal-ownership, by reason of the clear and massive demonstration of its success in British cities; and some members who were not favorable to municipal-ownership have become so during this investigation. Speaking of one of these cases to a private-ownership man who did not go to England, I said, "He's very favorable now to publicownership, though not exactly a municpal-ownership advocate as yet." "He 's a darned sight nearer to it than when he went away," replied the private-ownership man.

Early in the work of the commission a steering committee of five was appointed to lay out the details, employ and superintend the engineers and other experts, etc. This sub-committee was composed

of Professors Goodnow and Bemis, Mr. Walton Clark, Dr. Maltbie, and Mr. Sullivan. Professor Commons and Mr. Sullivan were selected to report on labor conditions; Gray on politics, Maltbie on taxation, Goodnow and Fisher on British and American municipalities, etc., and a special committee was appointed to correllate the data gathered by the experts. The functions of this committee and the reasons for it are thus stated in the report:

"It was deemed advisable that the principal facts relating to the investigation should be gathered in concise and simple statements, and the leading interpretations of the data collected by the Commission and its experts be made available to all with a minimum expenditure of time and effort, and freed so far as possible from all technicalities for the benefit of those who may not have the time or technical knowledge enabling them to interpret for themselves schedules and other sources of information upon which this report is based. And in order that such statements might be made from various points of view, the Commission appointed a Committee of Four with power to write collectively or individually according to any plan the members might deem best. This Committee consisted of Prof. E. W. Bemis, Superintendent of Water-Works, Cleveland, Ohio; Prof. Frank Parsons, for many years a lecturer in Boston University Law School, and a writer on law and economics; Mr. Walton Clark, Third Vice-President and General Manager of the United Gas Improvement Company of Philadelphia, which cotrols the gas works in about fifty cities and towns in the United States, and a Director also of the Public-Service Corporation of New Jersey, which owns nearly all the street-railways and gas and electric companies in that State, and Mr. Charles L. Edgar, President of the Edison Electric Lighting Company of Boston.

66

Clark and Parsons remained abroad

popular exposition, at one dollar in paper or two dollars in cloth. The second and third volumes contain the schedules and technical reports and cost four dollars each.

Press abstracts from advance sheets of the statements by Commons and Sullivan and the Committee of Four, have given the public too strong an impression of inharmony. In their presentation and interpretation of the facts the special statements just referred to differ considerably, but the report contains a vast amount of important data in respect to which there is no dispute, and every reader can interpret the facts for himself in the light of his own intelligence alone, if his experience justifies him in relying on that source of illumination for developing and fixing his conclusions.

Boston, Mass.

FRANK PARSONS.

W

HEN, on August the 21st, the senior counsel for the so-called "next friends" in the action brought to deprive the founder of Christian Science of the custody of her fortune, begged leave to withdraw the suit, the curtain fell on the most remarkable legal case involving_religious beliefs in the history of New England since the days of the Salem witchcraft and the persecution of the Quakers.

When the suit was brought, the instigators and chief actors against Mrs. Eddy claimed that there was no inten

tion of attacking the teachings of Christian Science or the religious tenets of its distinguished founder, but it was noticed that almost immediately the claims and teachings of Mrs. Eddy were made the subjects of attack in the long, aggressive and vigorous campaign conducted on ex parte lines by these parties in the daily press. Thus their protestations were belied by their actions, and the claim of Christian Scientists, that the attack was aimed at their religious beliefs, appealed to thoughtful people as being probably true.

It remained, however, for ex-Senator William E. Chandler, the senior counsel for the so-called "next friends," to place the question beyond all controversy, clearly establishing the claim that the religious philosophy or views of Mrs. Eddy, and her claim for her message, were the master objects of attack, or at least, the chief reliance of the prosecution in the attempt to wrest the fortune from the venerable head of the Christian Science church.

Mr. Chandler demanded that Mrs. Eddy be deprived of the custody or direction of her fortune, alleging as a master reason that she had been for years the victim of seven clearly-defined delusions, all seven of which related to her religious teachings or her belief in regard to the character and influence of those teachings. With this declaration from the chief spokesman of those bringing the suit, the case ceased to be merely a legal contest between a venerable woman and fortunehunting relatives, and became at once a case of nation-wide interest and of profound concern not only to all friends of religious freedom, but also to the people in general, as it vitally involved the fundamental rights of free citizens. For obviously, if a person has, during the greater part of a life-time marked by industry and good citizenship, entertained and promulgated religious views that run counter to those entertained by the majority of the people, and then is to be suddenly denied the right of the disposal of the property that he has earned during the years while he cherished these beliefs, on the ground that his theological opinions and teachings in the eyes of the majority are delusions, the ground will be laid for the despoiling of tens of thousands of citizens who might easily find themselves the victims of fortunehunting relatives whose passion for unearned gold is greater than their regard for human rights, reverence for age or considerations of the ties of blood, especially when wealthy outside individuals, who have ulterior or secret

motives, are ready to gamble on the result or to furnish money to employ shrewd, determined and resourceful counsel and to otherwise finance the cases instituted to deprive citizens of the results of a life-time of toil, for the enrichment of those who have never contributed one cent to the fortune which they covet.

Frequently in families are found persons who are shiftless, idle or incompetent to make a living for themselves and who regard with jealous and covetous eyes the honestly earned wealth of those about them, and when such persons have blunted moral perceptions, how easily they might become the tools of unscrupulous parties in attempts to wrest property from its rightful owners, if the fundamental rights of the citizen should be invaded as Mr. Chandler sought to invade them in the case of Mrs. Eddy, when he cited cardinal tenets of her religious teachings and her conviction as to the character and influence of her message as insane delusions that "had led, or would lead, to Senile Dementia.

The far-reaching and sinister character of the question here raised is sufficiently apparent to appeal to all thinking people, but it is not our purpose to dwell further on this phase of the case, but rather to examine in the light of history and modern research these seven alleged delusions, as here will be found a subject that is as suggestive and thought-stimulating as it is timely and interesting, and the facts brought to light will be surprising to those who have never considered the mighty philosophical concepts of the ages, the life-stories of the great religious leaders, or the recent discoveries and theories in the domain of psychology; and it will be shown as our investigation proceeds, that if Mr. Chandler's criterion is to be accepted, many of earth's profoundest philosophers, many of those intellectual giants, whose thought falls athwart the intellectual pathway of man with sun-like radiance, must be adjudged