some years by certain tables contained in the annual reports of the Tax Commissioner of Massachusetts, only one must read between the lines to apprehend the tables.

If one takes up at random a report of the Tax Commissioner (Public Document No. 16),-e.g., that of 1899,-he will find statements of the assets and liabilities of all the towns and cities of the State, arranged under one alphabet. In the majority of cases in which "trust funds" are reported, the entries on both sides of the statement balance exactly. In certain cases the liability exceeds the asset; e.g., that of Worcester, which in 1899 had trust funds amounting to $304,724 among assets, against "Trust Funds" $363,547 under liabilities. For 1906, the corresponding entries are $322,571 and $443,610, respectively. In 1907 the amount of trust funds is $474,801 on both sides of the account. Again, in the report for 1899 Medford's assets include nothing for trust funds, but $46,376 appears among its liabilities under trust funds. In 1906 the corresponding entries were nothing and $37,294. In the case of Salem, in 1899, assets and liabilities, as regards trust funds, each amounted to $105,425. In 1905, Salem was reported as having $95,000 of liabilities for trust funds, with no trust funds on the assets side, while in 1906 the liability is $90,000, and again no trust funds among its assets.

The Tax Commissioner's report for 1906 showed thirty municipalities to be indebted to their trust funds. In eight of them the liabilities greatly exceeded the assets, while the remaining twenty-two were reported as having no trust funds among their assets. The names of eight municipalities in the 1906 list are found in the corresponding list for 1899. It would appear from the reports of the Tax Commissioner, as well as from the tables introduced above based on Mr. Gettemy's tables, that the custom of borrowing from trust funds for municipal purposes (whose precise nature cannot be determined from either set of tables) is fairly common among both the cities and towns of Massachusetts.

It may be noted, in passing, that the reports for 1906 of the Tax Commissioner and the Bureau of Statistics of Labor do

not agree either as to the number of cities and towns which were indebted to their trust funds or always as to the amounts of such indebtedness when the names of the municipalities are found in both reports. The discrepancies may be accounted for, perhaps, by reason of the reports covering different intervals of time and of differences of method in securing the data on which the respective tables are based. If an analysis could be had showing the nature of the objects to which the sums borrowed from trust funds were applied, it would doubtless be instructive.

Boston has been loudly and frequently criticised for issuing bonds to meet various current expenses. Mr. Gettemy's tables show that in 1906 the following-named cities had created debt to meet assessments levied by the Commonwealth on account of the system of Metropolitan Parks:

DEBT OUTSTANDING IN 1906 FOR METROPOLITAN PARK ASSESSMENTS.

In this connection it may be remarked that it can be shown, from their financial reports, that nearly half of the cities of the Commonwealth have, in recent years, issued bonds to meet the cost of paving and making other repairs upon their streets.

Borrowing from trust funds for municipal purposes and the creation of funded debt to defray current expenses are indications of the strong aversion common among city and town officials to meet enhanced expenses by increasing the tax levy. Pay as you go, seems not to be a popular maxim in this generation. Perhaps it never was anything but a counsel of perfection.

The following statement shows the length to which some Massachusetts cities are willing to go rather than increase the tax rate. The figures are taken from the official reports of the cities mentioned:

Part III. of Mr. Gettemy's report comprises three tables, namely: A, showing the gross debt, sinking funds, and net debt, etc., of the thirty-three cities, ranked according to the percentage of net debt to valuation; B, in which the same facts are set forth for 259 towns; and C, giving the population and valuation of sixty-two towns having no debt. But Mr. Gettemy warns his readers that the statistics of A and B "cannot have a secure scientific basis, for the reason that the valuation figures of the various municipalities are not fixed by any central authority." Freedom from systematic central administrative control and diversity of usage in handling their fiscal concerns is, indeed, a marked characteristic of Massachusetts municipalities as a class, although the cities, more especially the larger ones, find it necessary to make frequent appeals to the legislature for power to work out new local problems as they arise.

Section 51, Chapter 12, of the Revised Laws of Massachusetts, 1902, contain a provision, of long standing, that "the assessors of each city and town shall make a fair cash valuation of all the estate, real and personal, subject to taxation therein," and every assessor throughout the Commonwealth is required by Section 68, Chapter 25, of the Revised Laws, to take oath that he "will neither overvalue nor undervalue any property subject to taxation." The tendency of municipal officials to follow their own devices is illustrated by the following statements showing the proportion of assessed to actual value of taxable property in certain cities and towns of Massachusetts. The

statements are compiled from the Financial and Commercial Chronicle, published in New York City, for the years mentioned;

In the case of the remaining twenty-two cities in Massachusetts, either the proportion of assessed to actual value is not stated, or it is stated as "about full value," "full and fair cash value," "about market value," "fair cash value," "about actual value," etc.

Another obstacle in the way of securing "complete comparability of municipal statistics," instanced by Mr. Gettemy, is the wide range in the dates at which fiscal years close. He calls attention to the fact that, in sixteen of the cities, the calendar and fiscal years coincide, while eleven close their books November 30, as does the Commonwealth; and two (namely, Boston and Waltham) close theirs on January 31. The wider range among the towns, which is set forth in detail, is attributed to their annual meetings being scattered through four months of the year. The cities have all been established since the reckoning of time in accordance with the Gregorian calendar has become a matter of course, and their preference for the modern calendar is easily explicable. Of the cities, twenty close their books in the last calendar month, two in the first calendar month, and eleven in November.