to take advantage of this sentiment to sell at a time when the market is good.

No sooner had the act been approved, however, than a committee of Detroit citizens employed counsel to test the validity of the new law. The case was brought in the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan by the attorney-general, on the relation of George H. Barbour and eight other citizens, against Hazen S. Pingree, Elliott G. Stevenson, and Carl E. Schmidt, the commissioners appointed by the common council under the act. It was argued for the relators that the act contravenes the provision in the constitution of the State which declares that the State shall not be a party to, or interested in, any work of internal improvement, nor engaged in carrying on any such work, except in the expenditure of grants to the State of land or other property.

. This provision was inserted in the constitution of 1850 after a sad experience on the part of Michigan in relation to internal improvements,-notably, a canal from Mount Clemens to the mouth of the Kalamazoo River and the Michigan Central and the Michigan Southern Railways. In 1846 the railways, so far as constructed, were sold by the State to corporations chartered for the purpose of purchasing, at a sum much below what had been their cost; and the people provided against any repetition of State participation in such enterprises.

The Supreme Court has construed this provision to prevent the improvement of navigation of the Muskegon River (Ryerson v. Utley, 16 Mich. 269), and has held that "what the State, as a political community, cannot do, it cannot require the inferior municipalities to do" (People v. Salem, 20 Mich. 487). It was pointed out by the court that the competency of the State legislature to authorize a city to acquire and maintain a public park, a lighting-plant, a fire department, and the like, is not inconsistent with the views expressed, because such objects are a proper exercise of the municipal police. Incidentally to public lighting, also, a city may furnish light to citizens. Under the constitution of Massachusetts, which is unlike that of Michigan, it has been held to be competent for the legislature to authorize a city to furnish light to its citizens; yet two years later the same court held that it was not

competent to authorize a city to buy wood and fuel to sell to the inhabitants, because the carrying on of such a business cannot be regarded as a public service for which taxes may be levied. The decision of the court has not yet (June 10) been rendered. It is generally believed that the court will decide the law to be unconstitutional, and steps are being taken to accomplish the same object in a way not repugnant to the constitution.

The reasons why no extension of the charters of the Detroit railways can reasonably be expected are now to be examined. In November, 1862, the city council by ordinance provided for the use of certain streets for street railway purposes. The returns to the city were in the shape of license taxes on cars, and of course soon became inadequate. In 1879, or thirteen years before the expiration of the charter, a new agreement was made, whereby certain concessions were agreed to by both sides. The city granted an extension of the original charter for thirty years from that date, or seventeen years beyond the life of the original charter; and the roads agreed to an increase in taxation, and further agreed to sell eight tickets for a quarter during "workingmen's hours." From the very date of the new ordinance the terms were objected to as being not as advantageous as the city had a right to expect. In 1890 Mr. Pingree, having been elected mayor of Detroit, immediately took a stand in favor of greater compensation to the city. At that time the roads were still operated by horsepower. So strong was the feeling against the management of the lines that a riot ensued, in which men of prominence and influence in the community were active participants. Under the stress of popular feeling the roads were sold twice.

It having been discovered that the life of the corporation to which the original grant was made was limited to thirty years, while the city franchise as extended would run for forty-three years, a suit was brought by the city to uphold the contention that the franchise expired with the life of the original corporation. The case was transferred to the United States courts, and in the Circuit Court was decided in favor of the city. In the Court of Appeals, however, that decision was reversed. Judge Lurton, delivering the opinion, held that "a street rail

way company is not incapable of taking a grant of a right to use streets of a city for its railway for a term extending beyond its own corporate franchise, the interest granted being assignable." (64 Federal Reporter, 628). In this decision the people acquiesced, with the idea that, when the time came for obtaining control over the streets, they would seek more adequate compensation for the privileges granted.

The question as to what is adequate compensation is one on which the people and the corporation naturally may be expected to differ; nor is any charter granted to a private corporation by a common council likely to be received with favor, because of the strong sentiment that has been aroused, particularly in Detroit, in favor of municipal ownership and lower fares. The question, therefore, is simply whether the city shall (and can) take action now, or whether the municipality will elect to await the expiration of the main franchises already granted.

The present proposition (anticipating an adverse decision of the court) is that the commission, acting as a private corporation, shall purchase the roads, and obtain a new consolidated security franchise substantially on the same terms as proposed for the municipal commission, the new corporation to hold the property in trust for the city until such time as constitutional authority for municipal ownership can be obtained, either by amending the constitution or in some other manner. The question naturally arises as to how far such action would differ from an extension of the present franchises to their present owners. The only new point in the controversy, in its present form, is whether the trial of three-cent fares by an inexperienced management is a sufficient compensation for granting the extension of a charter for nearly half a century.

CHARLES MOORE.

THE cause of education gains by the election of President Arthur T. Hadley of Yale University, and we trust the cause of economic science will not lose too heavily. The new honors and responsibilities have been worthily won by President Hadley, whose career as an administrator, it may be pre

dicted, will be no less brilliant than it has been as a teacher and writer. Economic students meanwhile will hope that his pen may remain at their service in the future as in the past.

At the Commencement ceremonies of this year Harvard University tendered her congratulations alike to President Hadley and to the ancient seat of learning he has been chosen to represent, by conferring on him the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws.

THE organization of the central administrative force of the Twelfth Census has been completed by the appointment, as one of the five "chief statisticians," of Mr. S. N. D. North, who will have charge of the statistics of manufactures. The other appointments to the leading parts were noted in the last issue of this Journal. Mr. North's qualifications for the work intrusted to him are of the highest, and make it certain that this part of the census work, like the rest, will be ably directed.

The United States Industrial Commission, whose organization has also been described in these columns,† has made several commendable appointments of specialists to aid in its investigations. Professor J. W. Jenks, of Cornell University, is "expert agent" on trusts and industrial combinations; Professor E. R. Johnston, of the University of Pennsylvania, has the same appointment on transportation; and Mr. F. J. Stimson, of Boston, is special counsel to aid in the preparation of a report on labor legislation.

See p. 35 of the current volume.

+ See the article by Mr. Carroll D. Wright, p. 228 of the current volume. A more detailed account is given in the North American Review for June, by Mr. North, who is a member of the Industrial Commission.

IN May of the current year a notable conference was held in Berlin for the renewal and support of the movement to promote international concert with regard to labor legislation. Among those in attendance were legislators, business men, and scholars; and a committee of twenty was appointed to maintain and enlarge the organization, with authority to take part in an international conference and to form a national section for Germany.

It will be recalled that this subject was discussed at the Berlin Conference of 1890 and at the congresses at Zürich in August, 1897, and in Brussels in October, 1897. At the last-named gathering, at Brussels, a committee was appointed to draft articles for an international organization; and the completion of this draft has now led to the Berlin movement. Among those who took part may be mentioned Professors Brentano, Schmoller, and Wagner. The Socialist party in the Reichstag, oddly enough, refused to take part in the movement, at first, on the ground of some informality in the invitation extended to them; but, finally, after repeated invitation, with simply a flat refusal.

THE "franchise" tax act in New York, of which an account appears in another column from the competent hands of Professor Seligman, is but one of several tax measures of importance which have been under discussion in different States. This one alone reached the stage of enactment, showing once more how all-important is the element of courageous leadership in securing legislative action. In Michigan, a bill for taxing railway companies on the whole "value" of their property, on a plan analogous to that used in other States of the Middle West, was strongly urged; but an act previously passed in the same session for taxing express companies in the same manner was held unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of the State, and the railway bill was then withdrawn. A plan for an income tax, to be assessed by declaration of the tax-payers, was also under discussion; and, finally, a proposal