Cities generally claim, and so do their "experts," that they should only pay junk value, or the cost of a modern plant to give the same results. This is eminently unfair, because the city buys a property which is in full operation and it receives the full revenue, in addition to obtaining service for itself at a less cost than it heretofore paid. The difference between the cost to the city of furnishing the service itself, and what it paid the company, is profit, but there is a charge against this of loss in taxes. These two latter items, namely, profit and taxes, generally balance each other, although the writer has known of cases where the city was the gainer. There are many points which can be advanced to establish the fairness of the methods outlined herein, but they would take some time to explain, and therefore the writer has only set out the plan he follows in his examinations, hoping that it may be of some aid in establishing a uniform method which will be upheld by the Courts. It may be stated that recently this method was used in an examination, going back thirty-five years, and the results were accepted by both sides without question. The writer has refused a number of examinations when told in advance what result must be found, as well as in "expert" work, where the examiner is expected to help make a case, regardless of his honest judgment, for, by accepting such work, the engineer hurts his reputation and lays the Profession open to such remarks as Judge Lacombe recently made in the case of the Peoria Water-Works Company _vs._ Central Railway Company. The writer is fast coming to the conclusion that a great deal of legal trouble is caused by the decisions of commissions, the members of which have not had experience in these matters. If a commission consisted of an able lawyer, a financial man, and an engineer who has had a broad operating experience, its decisions would carry weight, and the Courts would not be burdened with so many appeals. WILLIAM G. RAYMOND, M. AM. SOC. C. E. (by letter).—This is, perhaps, the best paper on the valuation of public service property that has yet appeared. The author's analysis is very clear, and his arguments are convincing. Three points the writer would like to consider; two of them briefly. The item, "going value," even if it is determined on logical reasoning, as suggested by Professor Mead, would seem to be a dangerous item, and one which might result in absurdities when estimated by an unscrupulous, ignorant person. Moreover, the term has been differently defined, and there is no certainty as to just what it means. The writer sees no reason for the existence of such a term, or of such a separate quantity as this term is supposed to represent.