be either purchased or otherwise induced to prevent it going to the people. Q. What change would you suggest ? A. A change in that section — a fair one, I think, would be to require a majority vote of one City Government and then submission to the people. That is a change that I have already recommended to the Massachusetts Legislature. Q. You realize that it has already passed one City Government? A. I want to state, if you will pardon me, that I made the fight for that in 1898 in the Massachusetts Legislature and came within seven votes of carrying it against an unfavorable report. Q. You realize that it has passed one City Government? A. Yes. Q. What objection can there be to having a two-thirds vote of the City Government upon that? A. This objection, that all they have to do is to get sixteen members of the Common Council to go out in the anteroom, and they can stop it going to the people. That is all. There are one or two gentlemen on this Committee who did that, some of your associates on this Committee. Q. Then it is not necessary to go to the Legislature to remedy that. This is the place to remedy that — City Hall. All you want is the fifty votes. Why should you have to go to the Legislature to get it by the City Government? A. Because it is too easy for a corporation to get fifteen or sixteen votes. Q. They have to get twenty-five votes. I want to hear another objectionable section, and your objections to it. A. Well, I will not attempt to go into that. Q. I want to hear one more objectionable section? A. Well, I will call them off to you without reading them. Q. You will have to read them to satisfy me. A. You are from Missouri. I believe the gentleman is trying to have a little fun with me, and I am not going to allow him to force me to do it. Q. I object to that statement. I am one of those who believe chapter 34 is all right. I am one of those who realize that the object of the corporations is delay. Above all things they want time to perfect the act to their own liking, and to put it into shape to suit themselves. I would like to say to the gentleman that I realize that under the provisions of the act it must be passed by two successive City Governments. This is the second City Government.

A. Mr. Chairman, there is an honest difference of opinion between the gentleman and myself on that question. I don’t agree with him. I don’t believe the act is fair to the people. He may believe that it is. Q. I will ask the gentleman, in what section or in what form is the act unfair to the people 2 A. Oh, there are parts of every section in it — Q. Name one section, and read it. A. (Continuing) put there by the attorneys for the lighting company. s Q. What sections 2 A. I told the gentleman that I would call them off if he wanted me to do so. Q. You cannot call them off by numbers. Read one? A. If you will let me look at the act I will call off numbers to you. I will not read any of them. You seem to be trying to make a monkey of me before the Committee. Q. Well, when a man comes here and says chapter 34 is a bad thing for the people, it reminds me of the statement that the Municipal Printing Plant is discredited. A. I am giving you an honest opinion. You can take it for what it is worth. I believe that is so of section 1, section 2, section 5, section 10, section 11 — Q. What is there in section 11 that is objectionable — A. — section 15, section 20 — Q. What is there in section 20 that is objectionable 2 A. — section 22, section 27 and section 31. And now, Mr. Chairman, upon that question, having called off these sections, I simply want to refer the gentleman to the representatives of the City of Holyoke, who have had experience in dealing with the question of municipal lighting and who give me the information personally that they believe that, if chapter 34 of the Revised Laws was repealed, they could do a great deal better with the plant they have in Holyoke than they are doing now, a great deal better; that it makes it very difficult to make a good showing, although they are doing very well; that they could do a great deal better, understand, if the provisions of this chapter were repealed and simplified. Q. Have they got municipal ownership there 2 A. In Holyoke. Q. They own the plant? A. I think so. Q. In what way could they do better if any of the sections or provisions of that act were repealed? A. Well, I will have to refer you to the representatives of the City of Holyoke. I will not attempt to go into that question. As I have said, I did not come here to treat this question seriously before this Committee. Q. You are here, nevertheless. A. I don't want the gentleman to think I am seriously here. I believe this Committee was stacked against municipal ownership in the Common Council. I don’t say anything about your aldermanic Committee. For that reason, I don’t think the friends of municipal ownership should treat it seriously, and I am not going to do so. Q. Mr. Kiley, of course I realize that the object of the question directed at you as to the advisability of acquiring the plants under chapter 34 was a question that was all predetermined upon. A. Yes, I know that, and I answered it in that way. Q. And as a friend of municipal ownership I took you to task for that, and I wanted you to point out some objectionable section in the act, which you failed to do? A. I have pointed out several. Q. And if you had read an objectionable section I would read two sections for every one that you read that are full of virtue. A. I don’t doubt that. I said there was virtue in the act. I have said that. I said that we could start municipal ownership under that act and be successful, but that we could do a great deal better if it was repealed. That is my 3,1] SW6. I’. Q. What change would you suggest in the repealing of the act? A. Well, I have no changes to suggest here. I suggested my ideas to the Committee on Public Lighting of the Massachusetts Legislature in connection with the question. You haven’t the power to change that act, and therefore it is unnecessary to make any suggestions as to desirable changes here. I don’t want to get into any discussion or argument on that question here. Friends shouldn’t disagree on this question. Q. Friends, no, - friends should not disagree. But I have heard it said that friends have sometimes joined arms and followed a light known as a jack-o'-the-lantern, that led them into swamps and unsafe places. Isn’t it a fact, Mr. Kiley, that the corporations desire delay on the adoption of this act? A. I believe so. Q. And isn’t it a fact that the corporations have now got all they desire and that all they seek is to be let alone? A. Oh, I think all they seek is to get a little more. Q. In what way do they want more ?

A. Give them time enough and they will put a few more sections on there. Q. In order to prevent them from putting a few more sections on there we must adopt chapter 34 before they do. They want delay in order that they may put the sections on there. That is why I object to your statement that the act is not safe. A. Mr. Chairman, of course I did not suppose I was going to be catechised or lectured. I supposed I might be asked questions, of course. I want now to state to the gentleman that there is no man in the City Government of 1906 who has done any more to prevent them from putting objectionable features into or attaching objectionable features to that chapter than I have during the past session. I think the gentleman will admit that. I think I have spent more hours and given more time in the Committee on Public Lighting of the Legislature, watching legislation there, than any other man in the City Government this year. I want to state to the gentleman that I believe honestly that the city should own its lighting interests, business, the same as it does its water. I believe it should do it under the most favorable auspices. I have got to admit when I am asked the question that chapter 34 does not admit of the most favorable auspices. I do believe, however, that if it is submitted to the people under the provisions of that act, and they adopt municipal lighting — and I know they will by their votes — they can do it successfully, and show profits or a balance on the right side of the ledger. That is the way I answer that question, and I do not change from that position. Q. I desire to ask Mr. Kiley if he has read section 2, which states: “A city shall not acquire such a plant until it has been so authorized by a vote of two-thirds of each branch of its City Council passed in each of two consecutive municipal years.” I want to ask him, if the government fails to submit that act to the people this fall is there another opportunity within three years to do it? A. Well, the gentleman evidently is assuming that I do not believe in submitting it this fall. I do believe in submitting it to the people this fall, and that is what I am here for. Alderman LINEHAN. — I desire to bring out the fact that the object of the corporations affected is to frighten the people away from the adoption of chapter 34. I want to bring that out clearly. I would advise Mr. Kiley that it is wise to read his catechism. Men do not get catechised if they are prepared to answer questions. I would like to state that there are lawyers — such as George W. Anderson and Louis Brandeis — that are representing these so-called improvement associations and municipal franchise leagues, that are controlled absolutely by corporate influences. I would like to state to the Committee that the real object back of all this talk about chapter 34 is to scare the people away from the adoption of it. That is why I took issue with Mr. Kiley. Councilman DOHERTY. — May I ask Mr. Nickerson a question ? The CHAIRMAN. — Mr. Nickerson is not on the floor. Mr. DoEERTY. — Neither was Mr. Kiley when Mr. Nickerson asked the privilege of asking him a question. The CHAIRMAN. —I beg pardon — Mr. Kiley was. Mr. DOHERTY. — The Chair had finished. I don’t think Mr. Nickerson has any objection. The CHAIRMAN. – If Mr. Nickerson has no objection, and everybody has asked all the questions desired of Mr. Kiley, you may do so. Has anybody any further question he desires to ask Mr. Kiley? (No response.) Has any gentleman not a member of the Committee any question he desires to ask Mr. Kiley? (No response.) Mr. Kiley, have you anything further you desire to state to the Committee ? Mr. KILEY. — Nothing further, except that I trust the sincere friends of municipal ownership will treat this question as I have advised them already, and decline to participate any further in the hearings on the question, on the ground that the committee appointed by the Common Council to hear the question is unfair and is against the question at the start. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee, for giving me the opportunity of saying what I have. As a sincere advocate of municipal ownership, I believe that later on, when gentlemen on the Committee will be a little closer to the people, we might get a more thorough hearing. The CHAIRMAN. — I think, Mr. Kiley, that you have had a perfectly fair hearing. Mr. KILEY. — Oh, I have been given a fair hearing, and perhaps I should explain further. I think the Committee has been very fair with me, and I don’t want the chairman to take the view he has just expressed in regard to my position. I did not say that the Committee has not been fair to me. I say that the Committee appointed in the Common Council, a committee of eight, was principally composed of men who were recorded by their votes as in opposition — The CHAIRMAN. — That matter has been already gone OWeT.