889 - H. STANLEY ;EON$ ough? no? ?o be incurred." ? He has previously defined economic outlay ss ?hs? made "for ?he purpose of seeurin? future revenue." He does no? explain precisely how ?he future revenue may be secured; bu? presum- ably he does no? refer only to reproductive, i.e., commercial under?s?ings by ?he st?ta, bu? would include ?he raising of additional revenue by taxation where ?he special expenditure ?n question had provided ?he means of paying ?he extra t?x, ss in ?he example of roads given above. Bss?sble specifically st?s ?s? buildings existing for public purposes, from ?e Houses of. Psrlismen? down be ?he smslles? town hall are consumers' capit?l from sources o?er and ?heir cos? mus? be supplied ?han loans. Sidgwick st?es his views very clearly, and, as I think, correctly. He says, "There are two chief cases in which prlvsbe borrowing is recognized ss .justifiable: first, where ?he loan is employed productively, so ?hst?..?he additional profi? obtained by ?he use of i? supplies s fund from which lhe in?eresl may be paid, and a ocrlain properlion of lhe principal annually repaid; and secondly, .where il is employed io meel an exeeplionsl neeeasily for enlarged consumption, which could n.o? be defrsyed wi?hou? inconvenience or even suffenng ou? of..?he income of s single year, so ?hs? i? is good economy ?o spread i? over several years. Each of ?hese eases has i?s eounterpsr? in public finance." ? He proceeds ?o regard ss productive outlay, bo?h ?hs? which yields s .diree? revenue by means of s Governmen? under- t?king and t, hs? which is reaped from ?be community ss sn aggregate of individuals by means of increase of t?xs?ion. He remarks in regard ta ?he latter class of productive outlay, ?hs? i? is sometimes very difficult to say how fax any psrt, iculax increase is really ? Ptt2d/? _?nanoe, p. $70. s ?he Prindl?les o! Poltfica? ?oomnm?,, ?rd. ed., pp. ?9 ?.
