A further consideration in the matter of intangible values is the fact that they all partake more or less of the nature of "good will," and the question very properly arises, in the case of a purchase by the public, or of a rate-making valuation: "Should the public be compelled to pay for its own good will?" In the case of such a corporation as a street-railway company in a large city, any value arising from a surplus of earnings is due to the franchise, established business, or going value, or good will of the citizens of that city. This element of value frequently sustains an excessive bond indebtedness. At the expiration of the franchise period the citizens of that city consider a purchase, and are asked to pay, among other things, for their own good will. In view of the attitude of the Federal Courts in the Consolidated Gas Case, and the language of the lower Court in disallowing the item of "good will," which judgment was sustained by the Supreme Court, it is very evident that any attempt to fix arbitrarily a value on such an item in an appraisal is not likely to be supported successfully. The grounds named by the Court are: Tangible property has a value apart from any franchise or good will value. The franchise, conferring the privilege to be a corporation, to use public property, to be free from competition, and to enjoy many other privileges, has some value apart from tangible property. Good will can have no existence as apart from or detached from the franchise conferring the necessary privilege. Such good will (by itself) is not capable of being capitalized and distributed among stockholders. Citizens are entitled to have gas (or water) because they pay for it, exactly as they are entitled to have clean streets (and, in the same way, police protection or fire protection), because they pay taxes among other things for that. The Court, therefore, finds that there is no good will value in connection with the gas business in the City of New York, although it is said, elsewhere in the finding, that it is the best, most favorably located, and most prosperous business of its kind in the country. Judge Tayler, in the Cleveland Railway arbitration, says: "I allow nothing for good will. A street railway company which has a monopoly, and especially if it has a franchise value remaining, can have no good will value." Judge Lurton, in the Omaha Water-Works Case, says: "That kind of good will, as suggested in Willcox _vs._ Consolidated Gas Co., is of little or no commercial value when the business is, as here, a natural monopoly with which he must deal, whether he will or no." In connection with a consideration of franchise values, the following points are raised by the Federal Court in the Consolidated Gas Cases (157 Fed., 872-879):