348 THE MUNICIPAL LEAGUE OF PHILADELPHIA
one hundred miles away. As a result of the testimony elicited at these hearings, Seger and Byram were bound over in bail of $10,000 each, and Green in $50,000 bail, to answer the charge of corrupt solicitation.
None of these defendants, notwithstanding the convincing character of the evidence against them, was convicted. After the indictments had been found, the matter passed entirely into the hands of the district attorney, and the league's control of the prosecution ceased ; so it was in no wise responsible for the failure to secure the conviction of these men. This much is to be said, however, that the investigation and prosecution for which the league was responsible succeeded in defeating the efforts to lease the works, and made it possible for those who were interested in th introduction of a filtration system to have their plans eventually put into force and effect. In this work the league took a leading part; and, as William Waterall at one of the inspections of the filtration plant several years afterward declared, "whatever one may think of the league, credit must be given to it for its signal service in helping to preserve the water-works to the city, and in making possible the inauguration of the filtration plants."
The league's constant scrutiny of legislation at Philadelphia and Harrisburg led to the defeat or veto of many obnoxious measures, and to the amendment of others. For instance, in the matter of the gas lease, while it could not and did not prevail in its opposition to the passage of the ordinance authorizing the lease, a large number of amendments to the ordinance itself were incorporated by the city solicitor, and the interests of the city very materially safeguarded. So in the matter of water, as we have just seen. Along the lines of the street-railway franchises the league persistently opposed the granting of privileges without the city's being adequately compensated for them and its interests duly protected.
The league's scrutiny, discussion, and criticism of ordinances granting privileges to the electric-lighting companies, to the tele- phone companies, to the railways, and granting wharf leases, would constitute an interesting and instructive story of itself. The action of the league on such legislation was based upon a
