tion, plus 10 per cent, instead of a more complicated method of reaching the same result. The committee recommends a 25-year instead of a 30-year grant, with privilege of purchase at the end of 5-year periods; also the elimination of the term "going concern." The Differences between the Gas and Electric Companies The apparent discrimination in favor of the gas company as against the General Electric in the exclusion of the right of purchase is in part explained by the fact that the council believed itself to be in a position to impose harder conditions upon the General Electric than on the gas company. In one case the company was asking practically for a new franchise, while the other company had certain legal rights under its original grant that gave it both a moral and strategic advantage. Another factor of importance in this connection was the disposition on the part of an influential element, in office and out, to do everything possible to preclude city ownership of the gas utility. The clause in the gas ordinance giving the city the right of purchase at the end of twenty years, the term of the grant, was a makeshift proposition put forward by the business men's committee as a final effort to effect a compromise between the contending forces. There is doubt in the minds of some, however, regarding its value or advisability from the point of view of the city's advantage. In fact, Judge Brooks, the city's legal adviser, early in the negotiations advised the committee not to include it. He declared it was to the city's advantage to leave the relations between the city and company at the end of the grant entirely open. The company at the conclusion of the twenty-year period would be without any legal rights in the city, he explained, and the city council in a position to deal with the situation wholly unhampered. He declared there was potential danger in attempting to define the status of the company and the city at the same time. Judge Brooks's advice was either forgotten or ignored in the haste to reach a settlement that would head off municipal ownership. As a matter of fact, the municipal ownership men never for a moment expected to secure city ownership of the property at this time, nor did they take seriously the company's refusals to accept the ordinance, feeling sure that the company would eventually accept all the terms made in the original ordinance rather than turn the property over to the city. Municipal Ownership The mayor and the radical franchise element in the community most actively interested in the controversy were charged with deliberately attempting to provoke a situation that would end negotiations and force municipal ownership. This is far from the truth. This element, while for municipal ownership in principle, had consistently held the out-and-out municipal men in leash throughout the negotiations, holding that a proper settlement without city ownership at this time was the wiser course. But they insisted strenuously that the way be left open for ultimate municipal ownership through the right of purchase by the city at fairly frequent intervals. An interesting legal point involved in the controversy was the value to be put on the company's franchise at the end of the fortyyear period in the event that the city purchase the property under the old agreement. The company's attorneys insisted that the franchise had a large value and that the city would have to pay for it. The city attorney had coincided with this view. Judge Brooks, however, took quite a different view of the situation. In his opinion, the franchise expired at the end of the fortyyear period; therefore there was no franchise to purchase. Mr. A. E. Clarke, additional counsel employed by the city to pass upon the city's legal rights, declared that the company had in effect a sixty-year franchise but that the franchise had only a nominal value at the end of the forty years. The claim put forward by the company and some of its friends that there was an implied obligation on the part of the city to assist the company in financing its affairs by giving a liberal franchise was another interesting point brought out in the negotiations. This also was used as an argument by the General Electric company for the desired long-term franchise. The company contended that the public would inevitably share in the benefits through the better rates accompanying the lower fixed charges. It seems only proper in concluding this paper to say a word as Re-election of to the political results. As stated before, Mayor Haynes was reelected in 1908 almost wholly on the strength of his veto of the General Electric ordinance. He was renominated, this year, and on Nov. 8th was re-elected again for his fourth term, but by a plurality of only 35 votes. Practically his only card in this contest was his militant record on the franchise questions, as his administration in some other respects has met with much just criticism. The Socialist candidate came within 800 votes of election, and, without doubt, drew largely from the element that would otherwise have supported Mayor Haynes. On a straight issue between Haynes and the Republican candidate Haynes should have won out by a large majority. The mayor's Republican opponent, a former member of the council, had supported the other side of the General Electric contention, and was believed to be generally friendly to the public utility companies. The active interest taken by several members of the University, of Minnesota faculty in the effort to secure an advantageous bargain for the city was an interesting incident of the controversy. Prominent among them were Prof. John H. Gray, head of the Economics Department, and a publicist of national reputation, and Prof. Frank M. Anderson, of the Department of History. Prof. Gray made a telling talk before the committee in which he laid special stress on the importance of thorough publicity of the company's accounts. Prof. Anderson, an active political reform worker in the local field, followed the negotiations closely all through. He emphasized especially the importance of the right of purchase by the city at frequent intervals. Kansas City Franchise Fight. By J. W. S. PETERS, KANSAS CITY, MO., Civil Service Commissioner. Perhaps in no American city does the citizen have more to do with actual management of municipal government than in Kansas City, Missouri. The fundamental law of the city, its charter, is submitted by referendum, as also is any amendment thereto. That the voter does not, as is claimed concerning referenda, always vote blindly in the affirmative, is proved in Kansas City by the fact that a charter submitted in 1905 was wisely rejected for good reasons, while in 1908 a new charter, modified to meet these objections, was adopted. In addition to this education and responsibility put upon its citizens and the local press by Kansas City's right to frame a charter, a policy of management of the various departments of city government by citizen boards of three citizens, each for the most part serving without compensation, has been carried into practically all of the divisions of the city's work. That such control is not lacking in executive ability, is evidenced by the beautiful and extensive parks and boulevards, which are and have been since their inception under the supervision of unpaid citizens appointed by the Mayor. In the recently inaugurated civil service department under the management of a board of three unpaid citizens, this idea of giving to the citizen business man a chance to lend a hand has been extended. The civil service board at each examination selects a committee of three citizens, expressly expert in the matter of that examination, serving without pay, to conduct the several examinations for the various classifications of the city departments. This putting upon citizens the duty and privilege of taking actual part in municipal work and of familiarizing themselves Citizens at therewith by actual experience, has fostered in the community a forceful body of expert citizens, educated in, and of necessity familiar with, the principles involved in solving the needs and meeting the obligations of a city. It thus happened that when the Metropolitan Street Railway Company on December 16th, 1909, offered to the citizens at a special election, an ordinance granting a forty-two-year franchise extension, that did not adequately provide for possible municipal able to understand these objections when raised, and after disOwnership and was weak in its forfeiture clause, the voters were Cussion and argument in the press and on the rostrum, repudiated the ordinance by a decisive majority of 7,097 in a total vote of 30,377, though the ordinance had been passed by both upper and lower houses of the common council, and approved by the mayor. At the time this ordinance was submitted, all of the street railways of Kansas City were being operated by the Metropolitan Street Railway Company under the terms of what was called a "Peace Agreement" consummated when James A. Reed, now candidate for Democratic nomination for the United States A Peace Senate, was mayor. Under this agreement, ably fought for by the Reed administration, to correct some glaring defects in franchises inad visedly granted during the previous Jones administration, all the then existing street railway systems, namely, the Central Electric, the Kansas City Elevated, and the Metropolitan Street Railway companies, were, by the contract itself, in the year 1903, strongly welded into one operating system, for the whole city under a franchise contract expiring in 1925. Among the salient features of the "Peace Agreement" in addition to the fact of consolidation of the several systems then existing into one, the city obtained universal transfers for a straight five-cent fare, retained the right to enforce extension of lines to a limited annual requirement, and was empowered to compel street railway companies to pave eighteen inches outside their tracks. The peace contract also provided that the street railway company should pay the city eight per cent of its gross earnings, with proviso, however, that all state and county taxes should be first paid out of that percentage, the city retaining to itself the residue for its general fund. The universal transfer straight five-cent fare element of this contract has had much to do with making Kansas City a city of homes, having ample grounds around each, and has |