REGULATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES 133 
ring to endure the ills of monopoly rather than hazard 
what seems a gigantic experiment. Yet, considering 
the great advance already made by the city and state 
of New York* in the regulation of public utilities, it is 
difficult to believe that the people will not hold fast to 
what they have now obtained. 
For one 1 do not incline to ownership, though I do 
not pretend to be wise enough to reach a sure decision. 
Fortunately, it does not appear to me immediately 
necessary to make such choice. There is one good 
way easily open for its determination, viz., the com 
parative test of time. That the employment of taxa 
tion, as one instrument ready-made and close at hand, 
is wise, 1 have not a doubt. 
The astonishing thing is that economists, legislators, 
and newspapers, in their opposition to ownership of 
certain monopolies, do not more prominently suggest 
and discuss, even if they are not ready to advocate, 
the compromise alternative to ownership. How else 
can the opposition to public ownership head off its 
coming better than by advocating taxation in its stead, 
and why not be as persistent in experiments of taxation 
as of ownership, thus contributing to the only possible 
solution — experimental test and demonstration — 
the survival of the fittest? The true system when found 
will be the one that bears the supreme test of furnish 
ing a maximum service at a minimum cost. 
Legislature or Commission 
If, in the course of events, it should appear that public 
regulation is preferred to public ownership, and there- 
^See Reports of Public Service Commission, First and Second Districts, 
for the six months ending December 31, 1907.