It is a quite general practice for the abutting property-holders to pay for the first pavement by special assessment. Resurfacing is frequently and general repairs almost universally paid for by the city as a whole. It would seem, especially where property-holders pay on the installment plan, that a term of bond well within the life of the pavement ought to be adopted. Ten years seems a reasonable time, fifteen years at the longest. If borrowing is continued and one loan lapped upon another there comes a time when the charges for paying off the debt and the interest will more than equal the amount that can be borrowed. For instance suppose a man can continue to borrow $1000 per year on five years’ time, $200 to be paid each year. During the first year he would owe $1000, and at the end of the year he pays $200 on the principal and the interest. He borrows another $1000, so during the second year he is in debt $1800 and must pay at the end of the year $400 principal and $108 interest. The third year he is in debt $2400 and pays on principal $600 and interest $144. The fourth year his debt is $2800, and payment on principal $800 and the interest, $168. The fifth year and every year following the debt is $3000 and the payment necessary on principal $1000 and the interest $180. The payments on the principal amount is equal to exactly the sum he can borrow. While the amounts used in the illustration are small the principle is the same for loans upon long-term bonds. It would be better for cities and states to progress more slowly than to have saddled upon them a debt in perpetuity. There are times, however, when municipalities or other districts will find it the best policy to borrow money and issue bonds. Serial and annuity bonds have this advantage that as the improvement depreciates in value with time the burden of indebtedness for the improvement becomes less. But it can scarcely be considered the part of wisdom to have the bonds run longer than the life of the pavement for which they were issued. The pay-as-you-go plan is by far the most economical method of procedure, but it cannot always be followed. There are times when budgetary appropriations are insufficient and the people will not stand for heavy taxation. In one city it had been the custom for the city by general taxation to pay for paving intersections. As the intersections amounted to about 30 per cent. of the total area paved that was thought to be an equitable division, because the entire city receives some benefit from each pavement put in. But the applications for paving were much more each year than the city could pay for from its ordinary budget. The amount of paving done each year was limited by the area of intersections that the city was able to lay. Some districts said, “We will pay for the whole pavement, intersections and all, rather than go without or wait over one or two years.” The city council allowed this