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  comparative ­
  test  of  time.  That  the  employment  of  taxation, ­
  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  furnishing ­
  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.