charter in question should be considered a public act and, as such, to be construed favorably for the purposes for which the company was organized. Both in England and the United States, however, it has been held that the mere insertion of such a clause does not make a special or private law a public act, and that unless a charter is public by the nature of its contents it will be construed as a special act when passed with reference to a particular company organized to construct a certain road. The public importance of railways and the vital connection between them and the social and economic interests of the States, frequently led legislators into a good deal of indulgence, especially during the early period of railway development. The limitations of charter rights had not yet been established; and it was not uncommon for incorporators to maintain that the rights and privileges granted by their charter were absolute and unrestricted. Not until the advent of Granger legislation, culminating in the leading case of Munn v. Illinois, had the right of the State to interfere in the management of railways incorporated under special charters been established; and at the present time nearly twothirds of the States have statutory provisions reserving to the respective States the right to alter, amend, or repeal the franchise of any corporation, whether organized under special or general law. Reference to Part III, on constitutional provisions, will show similar limitations placed upon franchises by State constitutions.

The nature of the reserved rights of the States and the limitations placed upon the corporate life of railway companies are illustrated by provisions in several States here inserted:

Maine. The laws of Maine provide that "no corporation can assign its charter or any rights under it; lease or grant the lease or control of its right or any part of it, or divest itself thereof, without consent of the legislature." In addition, all corporations, whether organized under special or general laws, shall be subject to general laws. In Maine and Massachusetts the State may amend or repeal the charter, or the Commonwealth may purchase railways on 1 year's notice, after 20 years' corporate existence.

Michigan.-Legislation in Michigan on this point has already been indicated. Illinois.-In Illinois charters are granted for 50 years, with the privilege of renewal for the same length of time; and a law of 1895 reserves to the legislature power to enact laws on all the leading topics relating to corporate existence.

Iowa.-In Iowa companies may likewise be chartered for 50 years, with the privilege of renewal for as many more, and they shall eventually be subject to legislative control. The legislature may alter, abridge, set aside the charter, or impose new conditions which it deems necessary for the public good.

Kansas.-Special charters which do not designate the period of corporate life continue 99 years. The legislature has power to extend the charter period as it may deem proper.

Wisconsin. The legislature of Wisconsin expressly reserves the power to pass laws relating to reasonable maximum rates, the correction of abuses, unjust discrimination, and for the protection of the just rights of the public. Corporations, however, under the laws of this State "shall continue perpetually."

North Carolina.-Sixty years, unless otherwise provided for in the act creating the same, is the corporate life under the laws of North Carolina.

Louisiana.-This State limits the corporate existence to 99 years.

Texas.-In Texas a charter is forfeited if 10 miles of the proposed road are not put into running order within 2 years, and 20 miles during every year thereafter until the road is completed. Charters may be granted for a period of 50 years, with the privilege of renewal for an equal number of years.

Maryland and Rhode Island illustrate an entirely different type of statutory provision:

Rhode Island. The laws of Rhode Island prescribe a course of procedure which appears to be entirely in harmony with the needs of our growing railway and industrial systems. In that State the general law alters special charters whenever the latter are found to be inconsistent with the former.

66

Maryland.-Exactly the opposite is true in Maryland, where the adoption of the general code" is not to affect the rights and privileges granted by special charters.

Provisions found in the laws of all the other States dealing with this subject at all, do not contain anything not found in what has here been presented.1

1 States having statutory or constitutional provisions, or both, directly reserving to those States the power to alter, repeal, or amend charters, are the following: Arkansas, California, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin.

Determination of route.-Under early railway methods the route was very indefinitely indicated, the best of all descriptions being frequently contained in that clause in the charter naming the termini of the road; and it will be remembered that not all of the termini were mentioned in some charters, but that merely certain zones thought to contain eligible points" were loosely indicated. In other charters not only the termini but one or more important intermediate points were designated; in but very few, often insignificant, charters was the entire route described with sufficient definiteness to enable one to tell beforehand exactly where the railway would be constructed. The course of a railway is a matter in which the public has an interest. The manner in which the right of eminent domain has been exercised has depended very greatly upon the extent of the public interest in the railway in question. Before the charter was granted to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway-known to all the world as the first important modern railway-every piece of land to be crossed by the proposed railway had to be described and the exact location of the entire line definitely determined before the charter was granted. Such a mode of procedure had been practically unknown in the United States until more recent times. Even at the present time great competing systems quietly send out their surveyors to gain an advantage in entering new sections or in constructing lines which will shorten the route between important competitive points. It is not uncommon to have one railway build, section by section, year after year, until finally the design, which must from the first have directed the movements of the constructors, dawns upon the public mind and the real significance of what appeared to be perhaps the construction of a subordinate branch becomes apparent. This may or may not be desirable; that is immaterial. The fact, however, remains that important public interests are affected by just such movements, and every interest which is thus liable to be affected should have an opportunity to be heard before such important industrial operations are undertaken. No State in the Union has legislated in this respect with greater care and completeness than Massachusetts. The laws of that State provide that the termini, together with the names of the cities and towns through which the projected road or branch is to run, are to be given with as much certainty as the nature of the case will admit. The articles of association of the company fostering the project must be published in each county once a week for a period of three weeks; and the map of the proposed route, together with the report, must be submitted to the mayor, aldermen, and selectmen of the different municipalities affected. Public hearings, after due notice to all persons interested, are also provided for.

In Maine the railroad commissioners must approve the location of the railway before construction is begun. Extensions of existing lines may be built on application to and approval of the commission. Frequently the more remote States are less restrictive in such matters; but the laws of Arkansas make it obligatory for the company to file the map with the county clerk of every county through which the proposed railway is to be run, for the inspection of all persons interested. The location having once been established, no modifications in the line, exceeding a certain distance, are permitted, and a map of the road, together with such modifications, must be filed with the secretary of state. One of the most important provisions bearing upon this question is found in a recent law (1899) of Tennessee, which prohibits one railway company from holding exclusive possession of a narrow pass, thus preventing another railway company from laying its tracks through the same. If the pass is so narrow that only one track can be laid, joint use of the same is made mandatory upon the road which has built through it. No point named in the articles of incorporation can be avoided under the laws of California. A map of the road must be filed with the secretary of state after location. Changes in the line must also be filed. In Connecticut a map of an approved route must be filed with the town clerks on a prescribed scale; and, after construction, the lineament of the road can be changed only by permission of the board of commissioners. Florida charters must state the place from which and to which the road is to be constructed; its length, and the name of each county through which it runs. However, the direction of the road may be changed by a vote of two-thirds of the directors. Similar provisions are found in the laws of Georgia.

In a number of States maps are not required to be filed until after construction has begun or is completed, or within a year after the road has been finished. In Indiana, on the other hand, a map must be filed with the county clerk in every county named in the articles of association before construction can begin. If necessary, the route may be changed, but no place named in the articles is to be avoided. Kansas also requires the filing of a map with county clerks before construction; and the road bed may be changed, but not the general route. The map, approved by the president and secretary of the railway company, the attor

ney-general, railway commissioner, and secretary of state, must be filed in the office of the registrar of deeds under the laws of Michigan. In New Hampshire the railway commission reports to the supreme court on the public utility of the proposed road, and a map of the same, if constructed, must be filed within 1 year after the railway is opened; and the railway commissioner may authorize a change in the location and assess damages caused thereby. The New York railway commission has power to approve or disapprove railway projects; persons interested are given a hearing; and a map must be filed before construction begins. In North Carolina the charter must be filed within a reasonable time after construction. Petitions must be presented to the "statutory court" if the proposed route appears objectionable to the commissioners. To alter the route by a two-thirds vote of the board of directors, to deflect a route from a certain city by a two-thirds vote of the council, are the privileges enjoyed by railway companies chartered under the laws of North Dakota. In that State they are also required to file a map at any time within 6 months after definite location has been decided upon. The names of the termini and the counties through which the proposed railway runs must be filed, under the laws of Ohio. For good reasons a change in the route may be made, but the secretary of state must be notified thereof, and all subscribers and all persons who subscribed for the former route must be released from their obligations. In Wyoming the law simply declares that railway companies may exercise the right of eminent domain in locating or relocating lines. This was a common provision in early charters, under which railway companies were empowered to locate and to relocate the respective roads at their pleasure. Approximately, one-half of the States have statutory provisions governing the location of railways; and only a few cause accurate surveys and maps to be made, so that the exact location of a road may be known before construction begins.

Equipment. The subject of safety in railway transportation has been one of the most prolific sources of railway legislation in recent years. There are few topics about which so many different laws have been passed, and perhaps none in regard to which more separate acts have been approved by the various legislatures. A majority of these laws relate to mechanical appliances and the physical condition of the road, while numerous others have in view the improvement of cars and stations, in so far as these affect the comfort and health of passengers. Numerous police regulations also appear upon the statute books of recent years, relating chiefly to subjects like stealing rides on trains, shooting at trains or throwing missiles, destruction of railway property, interference with railway signals, destroying tracks, or other things affecting the safety of traffic. A movement is noticeable to encourage the abolition of grade crossings and to guard these more carefully in the many places where they still exist. Bringing trains to a stop at railway crossings, or permitting them to pass without stopping in case interlocking switches are used; the construction of switches and the use of keys for the same; the blocking of frogs, in order to prevent feet of workmen from being caught in them; and similar subjects, relating to safety in the construction of tracks, have called forth numerous recent laws. An old and ever-continuing subject for legislation is that of fences, cattle guards, bells, whistles, etc. The introduction of automatic couplers has been greatly promoted by the legislatures of a number of leading States, as well as the use of continuous train brakes. In a few laws the number of brakeman for every train, or for a certain number of cars, is also prescribed. Several laws regulate the question of precedence among trains, and in almost all States laws have been passed regulating the speed of trains in cities-although these are most commonly limited by municipal ordinance-in crossing each other's tracks, and in crossing bridges. In the southern States the law commonly provides for separate coaches for white and colored persons; in others, the heating of cars and coaches is made compulsory. Fresh water must be supplied at stations and in coaches, and the necessary conveniences for personal comfort provided on trains and in railway stations. In a few cases the laws provide for the examination of employees and the licensing of engineers, and prohibit the employment of persons addicted to drink. The adequacy with which individual States deal with one or more of these topics will be illustrated by the summaries of the laws upon these points in several leading States.

Alabama.-Speed of trains in cities regulated; fresh water supplied; separate coaches for white and colored persons; conductors may assign seats to colored persons; employees may be examined and licensed; the necessary lights shall be kept on switches.

Arkansas.-Separate coaches to be provided; officers assign seats to passengers; fresh water; railways responsible for baggage 48 hours after arrival; the rear of passenger cars kept clear,

Connecticut.-Crossings regulated and frogs locked in the manner prescribed by the commission; safety couplers, approved by railway commission, required; speed of trains regulated by the commission; number of brakemen varies with speed and equipment of trains; fresh water to be supplied, and engineers sworn to obey the law.

New York.-Automatic couplers; automatic air brakes for every train, sufficient to control train; railroad commission supervises the construction of switches and signals; tunnels properly lighted and ventilated; when set-offs are used in cars, the commission may approve or disapprove; railway crossings according to law.

Ohio-Automatic couplers, and interlocking switches at grade crossings, subject to the approval of the commission; commission to prescribe speed of trains over bridges; crossings constructed according to law; engineers addicted to drink not to be employed."

In recent years the commission laws of different States have provided for the reporting of accidents to passengers and employees. These reports are frequently made to the commission in the forms prescribed by that body. In some cases it is made the duty of the commission to investigate railway accidents.

Quality of service. Legal provisions falling under this head are closely related to the topics discussed in the section immediately preceding. Under the head of equipment, however, physical conditions were chiefly considered in their bearing upon safety in travel. Although numerous laws on this subject have been enacted, on the whole the physical side of railway transportation has presented fewer difficulties from the point of view of regulation and control than many others; because the immediate self-interest of railway companies made the prevention of accidents necessary, and for this reason uninterrupted progress has been made in the application of those appliances which make modern railway travel so very safe to passengers and constantly less and less dangerous to employees. Recent laws compelling the introduction of automatic couplers and air brakes illustrate this sufficiently. In the present paragraphs relatively little attention will be paid to physical conditions. These will be assumed; but the question that directly concerns us here is that of State influence on the operation of trains when they have once been put into service.

Train service.-The general laws of nearly all the States contain a more or less definite provision to the effect that trains shall be run "at regular times" (to use the phrase of New York), that bulletin boards shall be put up, and that trains running on other than schedule time shall be duly announced on these boards. About one-fourth of the States, however, contain more definite provisions, wider in their scope and looking toward a more direct control of the train service. In Alabama trains may be made to stop at all stations advertised and at county seats. Under certain conditions double-deck cars must be provided, and the speed of trains in cities is regulated. On petition of 50 citizens every train must stop in the city of the petitioners, according to the laws of Arkansas; bulletin boards must be provided and trains run at regular intervals; while provisions similar to those of Alabama govern the use of double-deck cars. In California the railway company may regulate the number and frequency of trains, subject to the legislature. Colorado laws compel trains to stop in cities, and give railway companies the power to designate loading points. At these points cars shall be furnished in proportion to need; and, in case of failure on the part of the railway company to provide them, for one reason or another, an appeal may be taken to the railway commission. The laws of Connecticut are more detailed on this topic than those of nearly all the other States. On petition of 20 citizens the railway commission may order trains to stop whenever they pass within 14 miles from a village; stations may be established on petition, and the same are not to be discontinued without the assent of the commission. Railway companies are obliged to make proper connections. The Florida railway commission has power to establish train schedules. In Minnesota, in case a sufficient number of cars can not be provided for all applicants, the same shall be distributed proportionately among them. North Dakota railways are by law compelled to run one train each way on each week day. Power to control time tables, and consequently that of the frequency of trains, is given to the South Carolina commission.

In addition to those above mentioned the following States have fairly complete statutory provisions on these subjects: Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont. Other States, of which the laws are less complete or practically wanting, are: Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, New York.

Among the commissions that have power to investigate accidents are those of Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New York, Ohio, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Up to 1899 the laws of Texas provided for regular trains once per day in each direction; but in 1899 (Laws, chap. 48) a law was passed making it obligatory to supply cars, without preference, to applicants. A shipper applying for 10 cars or more is to be furnished with them in 3 days; if the call is for 50 cars or more the same are to be supplied within 10 days. As a protection to the railway company the same may require shippers to deposit one-fourth of the freight rate on the contemplated shipment as a condition of delivery of cars; and this deposit is forfeited in case the cars are not loaded within 48 hours. In addition, the shipper may be fined for actual damages sustained by the railway company for his failure to load the cars ordered by him.

With this we have practically exhausted the legal provisions of the States bearing directly upon the frequency of trains and the delivery of cars. Under the heading of discriminations the same will be indirectly reverted to; because, as is well known, failure to supply cars has been one of the most common forms of discrimination. The subject of publicity of rates will indirectly contribute something to this topic, because the same statutory provisions dealing with one, in many instances, also deal with the other. The question of rates, being so important, will be taken up with much more detail later on, and for that reason train service and the publication of schedules may be dismissed for the present.

Through trains, routes, and bills of lading.-Many of the earlier charters and practically all the later charters and general laws provide that railway companies shall permit connections, junctions, and intersections with other respective lines. Apart from this no direct attempt was made to control through shipments and through service in general. This is primarily a question of interstate commerce and largely out of the control of State authorities. The Interstate Commerce Commission has handed down a large number of decisions bearing upon questions of through rates, routes, and bills of lading, and also on the choice of routes when goods may be directed over different ones varying in length and cost of transportation. The principle has perhaps been well established that railway companies are bound to obey the directions of the shipper, and that without explicit directions the shortest and least expensive route possible must be chosen for the consignment of goods. The legislatures of about one-third of all the States have touched upon this subject in their enactments, and some of them have passed fairly comprehensive laws upon it. The laws of Connecticut give the railroad commission the general power to regulate the exchange of passengers and baggage. In Florida other railways may be authorized to enter terminals and union stations of competitive lines, and two or more railways in the same town may be required to erect union stations. In addition, the Florida commission has the general power to order adequate and proper railway facilities. In case railways send goods over a longer route, when a shorter one could have been used, no more shall be charged for transportation over the longer line. The laws specify that transportation shall be directed over the shortest and most convenient route. The Georgia railway commission has power to establish joint rates, and it is the duty of this commission to investigate through rates, and, if necessary, to make representations before the Interstate Commerce Commission. Likewise, in Iowa, the commission may establish joint through rates and copies of such joint-rate schedules made by the railway company shall be filed with this body. The Maine law of 1899 governing leases and contracts expressly provides that none of the provisions governing contracts among railways shall be construed to prevent agreements between such corporations "allowing the trains of one to run over the road of another, both corporations assenting thereto." Under the Minnesota law joint rates may be established on demand, and under the law of 1899 the railway commission is given direct power in establishing joint rates upon such important objects of traffic as grain, flax, lumber, coal, and live stock. A rather stringent law was enacted in Missouri in 1899. It gives the railway commission power to order close connections of competing lines, when such connections will not cause serious injury to one or more of the roads in question; and in case of refusal on the part of the railway companies to make these connections, under conditions determined by the commission, a fine of from $500 to $1,000 may be imposed. Copies of all contracts for joint rates must be filed with the Nebraska board of transportation. The corporation commission of North Carolina has power to establish through rates and to approve contracts for the division of earnings in such cases. The law of North Dakota guarantees ample facilities for transferring freight and passengers from one line to another, and prescribes that no railway company shall do anything which may interfere with shipments of freight from being continuous. In 1899 South Carolina enacted a law making connections compulsory, and providing that the expense involved in making such arrangements shall be borne ratably in accordance with the orders of the commission.