¹ New York Times, July 9, 1929, p. 31 Google Scholar.

² Roosevelt, F. D., Inaugural Address, New York Times, Jan. 2, 1929, p. 2 Google Scholar.

³ New York, Laws, 1929, Ch. 673.

⁴ Massachusetts, Acts and Resolves, 1929, Ch. 55.

⁵ South Carolina, Acts, 1929. Concurrent Eesolution No. 601.

⁶ New York, Laws, 1929, Ch. 673, Sec. 3.

⁷ Ibid., Sec. 1.

⁸ Ibid., Secs. 6-7.

⁹ Knapp, A. Blair, The Water Power Problem in New York State (Manuscript, p. 61)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ New York Times, March 26, 1929, p. 19 Google Scholar.

¹¹ Ibid., April 17, 1929, p. 4. The personnel of the committee appointed to conduct the investigation is as follows: Senator John Knight, chairman (Rep.); Assemblyman Horace M. Stone, vice-chairman (Rep.); David Adie, secretary (Indep. Rep.), appointed by governor; Senator Warren T. Thayer, chairman senate public service committee (Rep.); Senator William J. Hickey, member senate public service committee (Rep.); Assemblyman Joseph A. McGinnis, speaker of the assembly (Rep.); Assemblyman Eussel G. Dunmore (Rep.), leader of the assembly; Professor J. C. Bonbright, Columbia University (Independent), appointed by governor, and Frank P. Walsh (Dem.), appointed by governor. Col. William J. Donovan, of Buffalo, was appointed consulting attorney, and under his direction a factfinding staff has been selected to assist in the investigation. This staff is headed by Dr. W. E. Mosher, of the School of Citizenship and Public Affairs of Syracuse University. The work performed to date (Nov. 30) gives promise of at least bringing together, in a non-partisan way, a vast quantity of important information of great interest not only to New York but to every state in the Union.

¹² Massachusetts, Acts and Resolves, 1929, Ch. 55. The commission's hearings have brought out clearly the opposition in Massachusetts to the “reproduction-cost-new” theory and to the increasing influence of holding companies. According to Commissioner Goldberg, “public opinion in Massachusetts would demand public ownership of utilities if the decision of the Supreme Court set aside legality of the present system of rate determination based on actual stockholders' investments rather than on reproductive costs.” With regard to holding companies, the same commissioner stated that “holding companies are likely to be essentially interested in boosting the market price of their shares and consequently in securing large immediate returns rather than in following a conservative, long pull policy.” Boston News Bureau, Nov. 26, 1929, p. 5 Google Scholar.

¹³ South Carolina, Acts, 1929. Concurrent Resolution, No. 601.

¹⁴ Kansas, Laws, 1929, Ch. 259.

¹⁵ New Hampshire, Laws, 1929, Ch. 144.

¹⁶ Florida, Acts, 1929, Vol. I, p. 349 Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Idaho, Laws, 1929, Ch. 267.

¹⁸ Iowa, Acts, 1929, Ch. 133.

¹⁹ Missouri, Laws, 1929, p. 340 Google Scholar.

²⁰ New Jersey, Acts, 1929, Ch. 638.

²¹ Nevada, Statutes, 1929, Ch. 51.

²² New Mexico, Laws, 1929, Ch. 129.

²³ Ohio, Laws, 1929, Sec. 614.

²⁴ Oregon, Laws, 1929, Ch. 394.

²⁵ South Carolina, Acts, 1929, No. 220.

²⁶ Tennessee, Acts, 1929, Ch. 76.

²⁷ Texas, Laws, 1929, Ch. 314.

²⁸ Utah, Laws, 1929, Ch. 94.

²⁹ Wyoming, Laws, 1929, Ch. 124.

³⁰ Nebraska, Laws, 1929, Ch. 104, replacing Ch. 108 of the Laws of 1927.

³¹ Nebraska, Laws, 1929, Ch. 104, Sec. 21.

³² The librarian of the Nebraska Legislative Reference Library informs the writer that as yet no districts have been created under either the law of 1927 or that of 1929.

³³ Kansas, Laws, 1929, Ch. 127.

³⁴ Indiana, Laws, 1929, p. 252 Google Scholar.

³⁵ Bauer, John, “Public Utilities,” in 18 National Municipal Review 716 (Nov., 1929)Google Scholar.

³⁶ New Hampshire, Laws, 1929, Ch. 106.

³⁷ Maine, Acts and Resolves, 1929, Ch. 280.