The recent Austro-Prussian convention on the subject of double taxation is an auspicious indication of international comity and concert in a field of action that has been too long neglected. It deserves to be signalized as affording an example worthy of imitation in its essential principles, if not in all of its details, by other states. The text of the convention, the legislation necessary to make it operative, and the ministerial report explaining its provisions, are all to be found in Schanz's Finanz-Archiv of recent issue (Vol. XVIII, p. 285). There is much that is unsatisfactory in existing conditions of taxation, but it is doubtful whether there is any one thing that has given rise to such widespread irritation and annoyance as the particular evil known under the name of double taxation. The fiscal practice of most nations is, as regards this important detail of procedure, in defiance of every reasonable sentiment of fair dealing. Laws adapted to mediaeval conditions continue to be administered to the present day, in disregard of the complicated changes that have been wrought in the texture of social and industrial relations by the ever-increasing mobility of modern life and capital. To tax its own citizens, wherever they might happen to be, and to tax all others, whenever they could be reached through their person, their property, or their business, is not an extravagant statement of the principle, to which the drift of economic changes, rather perhaps, than the spirit of governmental exploitation, has brought most modern states. But the evils complained of are none the less real or serious on this account. The negligence of govern? ment has always been one of the most potent causes of mischievous demoralization in the workings of the tax system. The question, Where shall a man be taxed ? is one that admits of comparatively easy solution, if it once be admitted that a man should be taxed but once on the same wealth or other evidences of tax-pay? ing capacity, even though these bring him into contact with more than one tax jurisdiction. So far as the taxpayer is concerned, it is almost immaterial on what basis government proceeds ? whether that of

THE report of the Massachusetts Tax Commission" of I 896, recently subrmitted, is a noteworthy document. It marks the highest point yet reached by an American commission in the discussion of problems of state and local taxation. Among the two score of American reports on taxation it is distinguished by its statesmanlike grasp of fundamiiental problems and principles, and its scholarly acquaintance with modern ideas. Other reports occasionally surpass it in the treatment of special questions. The New York report of I871 went much deeper into the legal intricacies of taxation. The Ohio report of I893 treats miore fully of the methods of taxing corporations. But none has gone so directly to the heart of the whole subject and occupied itself so exclusively with salient features. This was, no doubt, chiefly due to the character of the commission, in the composition of which rare judgmnent was shown. The coimmission was not a comimittee of the legislature, but was appointed by the governor from persons who seemed particularly suited to help in its work. The bench, the business comimiunity, the farmiers, the workingmnen, the professional students of taxation, were, each, represented by a memnber on the commission -the last named through Professor Taussig, of Harvard University.2 It was an unusual commission, therefore; and, having undertaken its work in a large spirit, its conclusions are of m-lore than local interest. No apology seem-is necessary for presesenting themi to the readers of the