Two pages after the foregoing paragraph, under the sub-heading "The Relation of Public Service, or Quasi-Public Corporations, to the People," Mr. Riggs proceeds to violate the wise, though self-imposed restriction, and devotes no less than eleven pages to a defense of the project on grounds of alleged public policy. In these pages he concludes that such a valuation as he proposes—not a mere determination of replacement costs, but a real valuation, with proper allowance for all elements of value in use—would be of service in connection with (_a_) taxation, (_b_) public control of rates, and (_c_) public control of issues of capital securities. In supporting valuation as an expedient in taxation of railway property, Mr. Riggs seems to rely on a table made up from Professor Adams' Bulletin No. 21, as expert employed by the Federal Bureau of the Census, which table shows that the assessment of the railways of Wyoming for taxation purposes in 1904 was but 7.5% of their commercial valuation, as estimated by Professor Adams, and that this ratio varied greatly throughout the different States, running as high as 114.4 in Connecticut. Of course, nearly every one knows, even if Mr. Riggs does not, that the relation between the real value and the assessed value of all other kinds of property varies greatly from State to State, and even in different portions of the same State. On account of this variation, no table such as that offered by Mr. Riggs in support of his argument can have any value unless supplemented and explained by data covering the assessment of other kinds of property. It is worth noting, _en passant_, that the so-called "Commercial Valuation," on which Mr. Riggs rests this part of his argument, assigns a value equivalent to $32,054 per mile to the railways of Michigan and one of $45,211 per mile to the railways of the prairie State of Nebraska. Possibly this variation in the estimate of value is partly expressed in the conclusion that Michigan railways are assessed at 70.9% of their value and Nebraska railways at but 18.5 per cent. Obviously, there is no more need of uniformity among the States in the taxation of railway property than in their methods of deriving revenue from other kinds of property. Also, Mr. Riggs admits that, when the Michigan valuation for taxation was made, it was not diminished, as it should have been, by the use of negative, non-physical value. This is fully equivalent to an admission that the method was unjust to every railway not capable of earning the full return on its replacement cost. He says: "The use of a negative or subtractive non-physical value was considered, and advised by Professor Adams.... "Professor Adams and his associates, therefore, applied only positive values, where any such were found, although advocating the use of negative values." And, of the method then used, he says: