thing with certainty about the effect of making such a dam as that proposed, and that as the results of an untried experiment of that nature were problematical, they were unable to report in favor of the recommendations of the joint board. The testimony was indeed conflicting to a degree which can only be described as distracting. Expert after expert piled up flatly contradictory opinions on every phase of the inquiry. Setting out with considerate protestations of respect for the State Board of Health, council and witnesses would call in question every conclusion of that board as to the sanitary side of the problem. President Eliot very justly voiced what must have been the sentiment of every thoughtful citizen who was present at the hearings when he courteously but (by implication) severely criticised the legislature for not only permitting but expressly

directing the Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners to inquire into and judge the work of two coördinate

state boards, a proceeding not, assuredly, very complimentary to the joint board. It is said that the Massachusetts Board of Health has a great reputation outside of Massachusetts,--that its views are quoted as authority; but it is evident that it has no great reputation at the State House on Beacon Hill, if its opinions are subject to review by the Board of Harbor and Land Commissioners.

However, that part of the question at issue does not especially interest the writer, compared with the æsthetic side. This phase was almost ignored, -and properly enough. There are some things on which the Harbor and Land Commissioners are not experts. They may or may not be competent judges of the conditions tending to produce malaria and typhoid; that they made no attempt to reconcile the views of Colonel George E. Waring, Jr., and of Professor Sedgwick on

these points does credit to their discretion. But, however violently they may have allowed the opinions of the Board of Health to be attacked and questioned, they certainly were quite right in abstaining from any effort to review the verdict of the Metropolitan Park Commission. It is my purpose here to take up that side of the question, as having as much importance, for example, as the unknown effect of the dam on the "tidal prism." The only authority which has yet been heard on this essential phase of the improvement is the Metropolitan Park Commission and its distinguished advisers. If it should come to a triangular contest between the sanitary experts, the navigation experts and the æsthetic experts, it is my belief that it can be satisfactorily shown that the æsthetic phase of the Charles River improvement is as important as either of the others. At the same time, I recognize fully the complicated nature of the question, and I do not propose to question the consequence of the sanitary condition of the water in the basin, the effect of

the dam upon navigation, upon Boston harbor, or upon the sewerage systems in the made lands. But I do not hesitate to say that the so-called utilitarian aspect of the question has been permitted unjustly to obscure what should be the primary consideration, which, stated succinctly in the words of Olmsted, Olmsted and Eliot, is: "What is the most important service which Charles River renders, or may be made to render, to the welfare of the dense population of its valley?"

That is the question. What is the answer? Olmsted, Olmsted and Eliot write, in summing up their report, these emphatic words: "Charles River, freed from sewage, from defiling industries, from mud flats and from mud banks, and dedicated with its borders to the use and enjoyment of the public as a drainage channel, an open space, a parkway, a chain of playgrounds and a boating course, will perform its highest service to the metropolitan community, and will return to the community profits both tangible and intangible, which will annually increase."

If this statement be accepted as the wisest solution of the problem, and it must be eventually accepted, the question arises, Why cannot such service be performed by the river without the dam? In other words, why should the dam be deemed a necessary factor in the scheme of improvement?

The one great natural obstacle now existing to the improvement of Charles River is the tides, rising and falling as far up as the dam at Watertown. Whether we view the problem from the sanitary point of view or the standpoint of æsthetic principles, the longer the matter is studied the more imperative does the need appear of some device to shut out the tides. is true that to any one who has not made any special investigation of the question it does not at first quite appear why the problem, "To dam or not to dam," should be of such vital importance as the degree of attention given it and the seriousness of the contest made over it conclusively indicate belongs to it. But the more the matter is looked into, the more does

THE PARIS BRIDGES.

It

this burning question, "To dam or not to dam," loom up as the key of the situation. The fact is, the basin and the lower reaches of the river can never be made ornamental unless by some means the tides can be got rid of. Even where sea-walls are built, the slimy and blackened surface left by the ebb tide is offensive alike to sight and smell. Besides, as President Eliot has pointed out, the cost of improving the basin and the lower reaches of the river in any other way

dam ($657,800) would build good and sufficient sea-walls on both sides of the river from Cottage Farm to Watertown, ten miles in length; for this part of the improvement is but a small part of what would have to be done in rela