of this committee as set forth both in its report and in the charter bill as originally introduced in the state senate become law, the civil service commission, and any person or board appointed by the commission to make an investigation or to conduct a hearing, would have had the power of subpoena, and the present difficulty would never have arisen.

This recommendation of the charter committee, however, did not become law. When the bill was referred by the governor to the attorney-general for examination and revision, the latter insisted upon numerous changes and, among other things, excluded that part of the civil service article that gave the power of subpoena to the civil service commission and its agents. The responsibility, therefore, rests upon the governor and the attorney-general and not upon the charter committee.

Permanent and Temporary Remedies

What is the remedy for the difficulty that the trial board has encountered? There is only

one that will afford a perman tory solution, namely, to am civil service article of the ne earliest opportunity. In the m service commission is follo course by requesting the city tion the court of common plea to subpoena and compel the ap nesses at the hearings of the t commission might adopt the a shift of establishing a rule re employes to respond to the requ mission to appear when needed

Hereafter let us think twice b a so-called "practical man" to a few minutes the measures worked out with great care b have given years of study to problems involved.

The most serious indictment again municipal system is not its tolerat charters or incompetent officials, not ballots or party designations, not its or evasion of civil service rules, b interest and instruct the people in W. B. Munro.

In the preparation of the city budget for 1920, the mayor had an opportunity that no previous Philadelphia mayor has ever had. It is unfortunate that this opportunity was not more fully utilized.

In accordance with the requirements of the new city charter, the mayor submitted his budget for 1920 to councils on October 15.

Contrary to the requirements of the new city charter, the mayor declined to make specific recommendations as to salary increases, but "passed the buck" on this pressing and important subject to councils. As a matter of fact, he actually left the existing bonuses of approximately $900,000 a year out of his budget, thus indirectly recommending a decrease in compensation.

The mayor's budget has every appearance of being a mere perfunctory compliance with the outer shell of the charter's requirements.

It is regrettable that the mayor did not seize the opportunity that was his to make the city's first executive budget a readable and truly informative document. As it stands, it is a dry and somewhat misleading piece of work.

In view of the insistent demands for increased compensation for the large army of city employes, most of which demands seem just and likely to be met; in view of the forced discontinuance of the practice of using borrowed money for repaving and repairing the streets and for other current expenses; in view of the loss of almost $2,000,000 of revenue from liquor licenses, and in view of the large

amount of accumulated needs that should be met in 1920, it seems likely that an increase of 25 cents or more in the city tax rate is necessary. In other words, a fairly strict compliance with the standards set up by the new city charter seems, at this time, to call for a city tax rate of $2.00 or more for next year. Less than $2.00 (or $2.70, including 70 cents for the school district) is likely to produce less money than is absolutely needed if the new administration is to be given a fair chance to accomplish those results which all citizens have a right to expect next year.

The much heralded criticisms that items A42 and A44 in the requests for the bureau of city property are short-added, and that they are typical of short-additions throughout the mayor's budget, are not just; for they are premised on a mistaken interpretation that has resulted from the manner in which the requests are set forth in the budget. Several years ago the practice was begun of appropriating for these and a few similar items a lump sum, which was to be used for the payment of such of the employes listed as were actually employed and only for the time they were actually employed. It was recognized that it was not necessary to appropriate as much money as would be needed were all the employes listed employed during the entire year, but that only enough needed to be appropriated to cover a certain amount of work.