these mains is 12 inches. If they are closed at the outer ends we may fill the overhead main, but after that no water can flow until we connect the two pipes. Now we will put in a one-inch pipe, connecting the upper main with the lower main, say 1000 feet from the pump or generator. A certain amount of water will flow through the con necting pipe, which amount depends upon its size

one inch-and From the gen

upon the pressure of the water in the upper main. erator to the one-inch connecting pipe the same amount of water flows in the upper main as flows down through the connection,— no more and no less. Beyond the connecting pipe no water is flowing in the upper main.

Now we will put in a second connecting pipe 1000 feet beyond the first. For the first thousand feet we have twice as much water flowing as before. Half of it goes down through the first pipe. It is the same with every additional connecting pipe we put in until we reach the capacity of the upper main or the capacity of the generator to force water through it. By increasing the pressure we know that we could force more water through the one-inch connecting pipe, and so long as the pressure remains the same the quantity flowing through the inch pipe will be the same, whether the upper main be 12 inches, 12 feet, or 1000 feet in diameter.

The analogy to electric railway work is close. Electricity takes the place of the water, and the connecting pipes are electric cars, or it may be some unfortunate man placed where he ought not to be. He is only an inch pipe, however, and the pressure (500 volts) can only drive so much electricity through him.

The current for railway work has been fixed at 500 volts, as this is well within the safe limits. A shock from 500 volts is unpleasant, but not dangerous. No man, woman, or child has ever been killed, or even seriously injured, by a 500 volt current. The United States Senate had this question before them last summer. After a thorough investigation the District Committee unanimously reported that a 500 volt current is not dangerous. If there was any real question of its being dangerous we would use 400 volts or 300 volts. The objection to this, however, is that by reducing the voltage we must correspondingly increase the quantity in order to retain the same horse power, and an increase in quantity (amperes) means an increase in the size of the overhead wires, which is objectionable.

The danger limit to the electric current is probably about 1000 to 1200 volts.

As to the poles being eye-sores: I presume this is a question of taste. I have yet to find a single man, however, who refuses to acknowledge that when he went out to look for the objectionable overhead wires he failed to find what he expected. What was in his mind's eye was not over the street. A neat pole on either side of the street. A small galvanized steel wire connecting them at a hight of 20 feet, and suspended from these cross-wires a single copper wire over each track. You have no idea how free from objection such a structure is. You might cross an electric railway a dozen times without noticing the overhead construction.

The poles cannot obstruct the street, as they are inside the curb. They are just as much an obstruction to the sidewalk as lamp posts and awning posts are,-no more and no less. If the sidewalks be narrow, and permission can be obtained from the property owners, hooks or eye-bolts may be placed on the buildings, the cross-wires fastened to them, and the poles done away with entirely.

Every overhead wire is objectionable to the fire commissioners. The railway wire is less objectionable than any other, because there is but one wire, and this wire is in the middle of the street, away from the buildings.

If the single overhead working conductor is insufficient to carry the current necessary to operate the cars, it must be reinforced by feeder-wires. These feeder-wires may be insulated and may be placed under ground, the overhead wire may be divided into sections of three, four, six, or a thousand feet in length. At the ends of each section a cut-out or switch may be placed on the pole like a fire-alarm box, so that in case of fire the current may be cut out of the section or sections in the vicinity of the fire. The firemen would then have no difficulty in handling the wires, which in any event are easily cut by pliers with insulated handles. As ladders are usually raised parallel to the face of the building, rather than across the street, and as the cross-wires are 125 feet apart, it would be a very rare thing that the railway wires would be found to interfere at all with the operations of the fire department. As Prof. Thomson pertinently remarked to the insurance representative: "It will not be long before you will be taking power from these wires to put out your fires. It will not be long before we have electric-motor fire engines."

Charles J. Van Depoele and Leo Daft were the pioneers in the modern electric railway work in this country.

The first roads were built in 1884-85. The new motive power was, however, viewed with suspicion, and progress was slow until the Richmond road was built by the Sprague Company, in 1887-88. This road did much to popularize electric motors. The rapidity with which the horse is now going is shown by the growth of the railway business of the Thomson-Houston Electric Company, one of the several companies working in this field. In the spring of 1888 this company purchased the patents of the Van Depoele Electric Company, of Chicago. At that time there were some fourteen roads operating under the Van Depoele electric system. The first Thomson-Houston car was started at Crescent Beach, Mass., July 4, 1888. On the 1st of April, 1889, in less than nine months, there were 18 roads with 104 motor cars in operation, and 33 roads with 210 motor cars, under contract.

The reasons for this rapid growth are not difficult to ascertain.

The Americans are essentially a fast people. We live fast, and, unfortunately, we die fast. But as long as we do live, we go. Any time-saving device is gladly welcomed, and at once becomes popular. The limit of speed with horse cars is about 8 miles per hour. With electricity, the only limit is what we may fix as a safe speed. If horse cars are delayed, there is little or no chance of making up lost time. The reverse is true of electricity. With electricity we have rapid transit, and we can obtain it in a very simple and not too expensive way. Electric motor cars do not smoke or give off noxious gases, or make disagreeable noises. It is not necessary to run them in the air or under the ground, though they would run well in either position. They are safe, clean, fast, and reliable. They do not keep the street in an unclean and unhealthy condition. They do not take up as much of the street as do horse cars, for they have no horses. They are brilliantly lighted at night.

All of these qualities appeal to the public, and the verdict everywhere is favorable to electricity. The United States Senate and House of Representatives, in reporting on a proposed extension of the Washington road, said: "It is undoubtedly the best electric railway in the United States, and beyond comparison superior to any horse railway."

To obtain these advantages the public must aid the railways. The rails must be of sufficient weight and of such form as to best carry the increased weight, and stand the increased speed. Some form of girder rail weighing not less than 45 pounds to the yard is best suited to this work. The rail must be so placed as to be easily kept clean, and for this purpose should be slightly elevated above the surface of the street.

On the part of the railway companies, while the first cost is great, they can look forward to reduced operating expenses, a greater car mileage per day, and a great increase of traffic. Electricity has undoubtedly come to stay.

MEETING 390.

Profit Sharing.

BY REV. N. P. GILMAN.

The 390th and annual meeting of the SOCIETY OF ARTS was held at the Institute on Thursday, May 9th, at 8 P. M., President Walker in the chair.

After the reading of the records of the previous meeting, the report of the Nominating Committee was read, and officers elected for the ensuing year.

The reports of the Executive Committee and Meteorological Committee were presented, and ordered placed upon the records. The President then introduced Rev. N. P. Gilman, who read a paper on "Profit-Sharing."

Mr. GILMAN said: I shall confine myself, this evening, to a practical view of my subject. The theory of wages is a very simple matter, so far as the division of profits between the employer and the employe is concerned. If his business is profitable, he can afford to

pay the current rate of wages, and the question then arises if he cannot make it still more profitable for his workmen and himself by dividing among them a portion of the profits he realizes. Will a proposition of this kind, made by a manufacturer to his men, have the effect of increasing zeal, economy, and carefulness among them to such an extent that his own share of the profits will be at least as large as the whole was before, or even larger? Experience, not theory, must be called upon to answer this question. If in a considerable number of thorough trials of the principles of profit sharing it results in an increase of the whole profits of the business, and the ' workman's bonus is not taken out of the average profit, but is an addition, then profit sharing is good sense and good business. If, on the contrary, under the system of a division of profits between master and man, the men are no more zealous, economical, and careful than under the simple wages system, if thus the resulting profits, so far as labor is concerned, are not greater than before, then profit sharing is obviously poor business and nonsense. Let us, then, at the outset, dismiss theorizing about a wages-fund or other chimeras, and let us equally dismiss the confident prophecies of business men or others who know just what workmen will do if offered a share in the profits of business. Prophecy as an avocation is properly held in very little respect today. For my own part I have as little regard for it when coming from the lips of a business man, about matters concerning which he is distingushed by a plentiful lack of knowledge, as when it falls from one of my clerical brethren who are following Mr. Edward Bellamy's will-o'-the-wisp, and are not only "looking backward," but are also looking down upon experience. The scientific temper is equally averse to the Philistinism of the business man who reads only his partisan daily paper, and the enthusiasm of the hasty reformers who propose to inaugurate their kingdom of heaven tomorrow or next year. Always "the next step," as Rev. Mr. Savage says, is the practically important matter. Because profit sharing is such a feasible next step, I commend it to men whose action must be ruled by the facts of the existing social order.

It is disorder, to be sure, which we see in the industrial world today. When the United States Commissioner of Labor gives us the figures in detail, to show that in this country there were in the six years, 1881-86, 3902 strikes, involving 22,304 establishments, and