sequently adopted in all, or nearly all, of England's self-governing colonies. Its merits have thus been demonstrated by sixteen years of successful operation. Since enactment in this country, some minor criticisms of it have, of course, been made, but, upon the whole, its workings have been highly satisfactory. In 1900 the convention of state commissioners drafted a law for uniform adoption by the states, regulating the subjects of marriage and divorce. In 1901 some changes in substance were made in this draft, and the proposal put in the form of two acts instead of one. The first of these is entitled "An act to establish a law uniform with the law of other states relative to migratory divorce." Its first and most important section is as follows: "Section I. No divorce shall be granted for any cause arising prior to the residence of the complainant or defendant in this state, which was not ground for divorce in the state where the cause arose." The second of these proposed acts is entitled "An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states relative to divorce procedure and divorce from the bonds of marriage." The more important of its provisions are as follows: "Section 1. No person shall be entitled to a divorce for any cause arising in this state who has not had actual residence in this state for at least one year next before bringing suit for divorce, with a bona fide intention of making this state his or her permanent home.

"Section 2. No person shall be entitled to a divorce for any cause arising out of this state unless the complainant or defendant shall have resided within this state for at least two years next before bringing suit for divorce, with a bona fide intention of making this state his or her permanent home.

"Section 3. No shall be entitled person to a divorce unless the defendant shall have been personally served with process, if within the state, or if without the state, shall have had personal notice duly proved and appearing of record, or shall have entered an appearance in the case; but if it shall appear to the satisfaction of the court that the complainant does not know the address nor the residence of the defendant and has not been able to ascertain either after reasonable and due inquiry and search continued for six months after suit is brought, the court or judge in action

may authorize notice by publication of the pendency of the suit for divorce to be given in manner provided by law.

"Section 4. No divorce shall be granted solely upon default, nor solely upon admission by the pleadings, nor except upon hearing before the court in open session.

"Section 5. After divorce either party may marry again, but in cases where notice has been given by publication only, and the defendant has not appeared, no decree or judgment for divorce shall become final or operative until six months after hearing and decision."

Because of their importance, the foregoing sections have been stated in extenso. Shortly stated, the evils which they would prevent, if enacted by all of our states, are the scandal of migratory divorces, the granting of speedy decrees against absent defendants who may be ignorant that a suit has been brought against them, and the confusion now arising from the fact that some states permit remarriage to both parties after divorce, while others forbid it.

In 1901 there was also drafted by the convention of commissioners and recommended for adoption by the states, a law entitled "An act to establish a law uniform with the laws of other states relative to insurance policies." This draft reads as follows:

"Section I. No policy of insurance shall be rendered invalid by reason of any statement, representation or warranty made by the insured unless the same shall be material to the risk or made with intent to defraud.

"Section 2. No policy of insurance shall contain any condition, provision or agreement which shall directly or indirectly deprive the insured or the beneficiary of the right to trial by jury on any question of fact arising under said policy, and all such conditions, provisions or agreements shall be void.

"Section 3. This act shall apply to certificates of fraternal and mutual benefit associations as well as to all other forms of insurance.

"Section 4. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed." So far as is known to the writer, no states have as yet adopted either of the above mentioned divorce laws, or the justquoted insurance law.

In addition to the foregoing, a considerable number of states have taken steps

A

NEW railway deal went into partial force in the Canadian northwest on October 1st, 1901, and into full effect on April 1st, 1902, which is a very interesting experiment of control by the state and ownership by a private corporation. Enthusiastic claims are made for the deal and also prophecies of dire disaster. Time only can tell which will result-probably neither fully. In any event, it is a bold experiment of a young, vigorous and growing community to solve a difficult problem. To understand it, some knowledge of the past history of Canadian railroads is neces

sary.

Years ago when the Canadian Pacific Railway was incorporated by the Dominion Parliament, it was given, by a clause inserted in the contract, a monopoly of the carrying trade of the west of Canada. The building of railways west of Port Arthur on Lake Superior and south of the C. P. R. line was prohibited. This meant that there could be no connection with American lines or with the great lakes for water transit save such as the C. P. R. was willing to give. As the country north of the C. P. R. was thought to be a wilderness with increasing severity of climate east of the Selkirks, it was considered so highly improbable that a through line north of the C. P. R. would ever be constructed that the monopoly seemed assured. Of course branch lines could and have been built north but as they can have no eastern, western or southern connections save the C. P. R., they could only become feeders of and sub

servient to it.

This was fine for the C. P. R. as they charged all the traffic would bear and often a great deal more. I remember meeting some years ago, on a train in the Dakotas, a Scotch farmer, a sturdy, hard-working, intelligent man who had come from the "old country" some three or four years before. He

had invested his all in a farm near the line to Edmonton in the Canadian northwest, but after a thorough trial, had given it up as impossible to get ahead there. The railroad charged 16 cents a pound on every bit of freight that came in, and as the country is only fit for raising wheat for export and cattle for its own consumption, the living was very high. Think of paying 16 cents a pound for pork or corn-meal or apples in addition to the first cost. Then the railroads controlled the freight out and took the largest share of the profits of the wheat crops. This man had sold his property for what, he could get for it and, with the scanty remnants of his investment, a bitter feeling against Canada and the C. P. R. and his family, was moving down to Montana to begin over again. He was a fine specimen of a man and his failure was not due to laziness or incapacity. The railroad had killed the goose that laid the golden eggs. It had made three or four years of exorbitant freights out of this man and then he left the country. history is typical and it holds the reason why the growth of population in Canada is so slow and particularly why the Canadian northwest, with its marvelous natural wealth, is growing so much slower than the country over the border in the United States. In fact statistics show that although Canada has a magnificently equipped immigration bureau and although large numbers of immigrants enter her borders, her growth in population barely equals the excess of births over deaths. The United States gets a large and valuable emigration out of Canada.

His

In addition to its monopoly, the C. P. R., for its line of 850 miles from Winnipeg on the Red River to Calgary or the beginning of the Rocky Mountains, which is all that really benefits the Canadian northwest, was given 25,000,000 acres of land as a bonus.

force a crossing by the Manitoba system over the Canadian Pacific Railway. It was then that the Dominion Government, under the leadership of the late Sir John A. MacDonald, capitulated and made an agreement by which this government purchased from the Canadian Pacific Railway the right to allow railways to be chartered south of the main line to connect with the American railway systems. In connection with that concession, the Dominion of Canada paid a vast sum of money, amounting to millions of dollars."

At once, the Manitoba government made arrangements with the Northern Pacific by which they built a road from their main line to the Canadian border and then, under a subsidiary company, roads to Winnipeg and several other places in Manitoba. The Manitoba government paid nearly $700,000 bonus for this project. But these lines have not been paying speculations. According to the sworn statement in the public documents, the Northern Pacific lost $180,000 in 1900 in operating these lines. These 'lines, it is said, cost to build, $3,500,000. The railway manual figures the cost at $4,265,000 and a year or so ago, Mr. Mellen, the then President of the Northern Pacific offered to put them into a partnership agreement for $5,265,000. Now the Northern Pacific has sold them back to the Manitoba government for $7,000,000. As the Hon. Mr. Richardson says: "In order to get that company to build into Manitoba, the Manitoba government paid the company nearly $700,000, and although the company only paid about $3,500,000 to build the road, we are paying them $7,000,000 to go out of Manitoba." And as the Presi

dent of the Winnipeg Trades Council said: "this does not seem to be ownership of railways but ownership of railway debts."

In the winter of 1900 a bill was introduced into the Manitoba legislature which consists of only one chamber, leasing the Northern Pacific lines in that province for 999 years, assuming all the obligations of the Rainy River railway which runs from Winnipeg to Lake Superior, part of it through Minnesota, and altogether assuming an obligation of $17,000,000 with a liability of paying between $600,000 and $700,000 a year and that it should lease these again to the Canadian Northern Railway for the same term of years. The gist of this agreement is in the disposition of the income of the railway lines and the fix

ing of the rates. I cannot do better than quote parts of the two clauses to show exactly how this is to be done.

Clause I reads: "The receipts and income of the company from operating the lines of railways included in the mortgage securing said guaranteed bonds and from all its lines in Manitoba *** shall be applied in the first place in payment of the working expenditures of said lives of railway and in the second place in payment of the rentals under said lease and option and interest on bonds on said lines heretofore or hereafter guaranteed by the government or issued with the consent of the government. In consideration of said power given to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council respecting the fixing of rates, the government agrees that if the said receipts and income, after payment of said working expenditure,

are not sufficient to pay said rentals and interest, the deficiency (if any) shall be borne by the government."

* * *

Clause 8 reads: "In consideration, etc., the Lieutenant-Governor in Council shall from time to time, fix the rates to be charged or demanded by the company for the carriage of all freight from all points on the Company's lines in Manitoba to Port Arthur and from Port Arthur to all points on the Company's lines in Manitoba." Also it further agrees to reduce the rates on wheat from 14 to 10 cents, which is a large reduction, and to make passenger rates not over 3 cents a mile.

To show how high the feeling against the Canadian Pacific Railway is, it is only necessary to quote part of a clause of this same contract which reads: "The company shall not nor shall any of the branch lines