The law of 1873 stood until 1888, when it was superseded by "An act for the better regulation of railway and canal traffic, and for other purposes." The law of 1888 is to be construed as one with that of 1873 and the acts amending the same, and all these acts" may be construed together as the railway and canal traffic acts, 1873 and 1888." Under the new law the railway commission is composed of 2 permanent, appointed members, and, in addition, an ex officio member, being 1 of 3 officers representing England, Scotland, and Ireland, respectively. The ex officio member attends only the sessions held in the country represented by him, and is designated in England by the lord chancellor, in Scotland by the lord president and the court of sessions, and in Ireland by the lord chancellor of Ireland. His Majesty appoints the 2 permanent members on the recommendation of the president of the board of trade. One of these shall be of experience in railway business. The law specifies the commissioners' salary, time and place of meeting, and other details. A list of bodies and corporations through whom complaint may be brought is enumerated, including harbor boards, common councils, and other representative bodies, justices, associations of traders, chamber boards, commercial and agricultural societies, etc.

The board of trade may require security for costs to be given before granting permission to bring action before the commission.

The commission is given full power to execute existing railway regulations, to exercise jurisdiction over questions and disputes relating to rates, to order traffic facilities and award damages, and, in general, exercise full supervisory powers over the railways of the country. Sections 25 to 35, inclusive, of the act relate to classifications, through rates, group rates, and similar matters. Section 17 is one of great importance because it deals with a subject in which the weakness of much American legislation has long been supposed to exist:

"(1) No appeal shall lie from the commissioners upon a question of fact, or upon any question regarding the locus standi of a complainant.

"(2) Except as otherwise provided by this act, an appeal shall lie from the commissioners to a superior court of appeal."

In order to show that the conditions out of which English legislation grew are not radically different from those which shape American legislation, brief reference will here be made to Parliamentary reports of 1872, 1882, and 1893. The conclusions and recommendations of the committee of 1872 were summarized as follows:

"1. Past amalgamations have not brought with them the evils which were anticipated.

"2. Competition between railways exists only to a limited extent, and can not be maintained by legislation.

"3. Combination between railway companies is increasing, and is likely to increase, whether by amalgation or otherwise.

"4. It is impossible to lay down any general rules determining the limits or the character of future amalgamations.

"5. The most urgent question now pressing for solution is whether, under the present state of things, the interest of the public is adequately provided for and protected, and is not, whether any and what improvements can be made in railway legislation, consistently with the fair rights of the companies, which would protect the public against certain evils incident to the present system.

"6. The self-interest of the companies alone will not effect the object, since their interest is only to a limited extent the interest of the public; and it becomes, therefore, necessary to consider what can be done in the way of statutory obligation.

7. There can be no doubt that the introduction of certain amalgamation bills, which have been the immediate occasion of the appointment of the committee, affords opportunities for imposing conditions on the companies which may be desirable in the public interest.

“8. But it has been impossible to separate the consideration of such conditions from the consideration of measures, which it may be expedient to adopt, with respect to all railways; and such measures, if adopted by Parliament, might remove some of the objections to the present and future amalgamation.

"9. Whilst, therefore, the committee advise further legislation of a general character, they are of opinion, that, in the absence of such legislation, the measures they recommend should be imposed as conditions, so far as applicable, on the companies which are now seeking, or which may hereafter seek, to amalgamate with other companies."

Conditions which prevailed in 1882 are carefully described in the report of the select committee to Parliament of that year. Complaints brought against railway companies in respect of freight traffic-complaints in regard to passenger traffic were practically not made-were arranged by the Committee under 6 differ

ent heads. The first, relates to charges in excess of rates authorized by law; the second, shows the existence of discriminations between different kinds of goods when transported over the same line under the same conditions; the third, is directed against discriminations unfavorable to commodities consumed at home and preference shown to export goods; the fourth, relates to discriminations between rival shippers; the fifth, asserts that rates were, in certain instances, much higher than they had been many years before, and that excessive, though not illegal, rates prevent traffic, to the prejudice of the public and of the railways; in the sixth, the question of obtaining redress on the part of private individuals is dwelt upon, especially in cases of overcharges and discriminations; and finally that, because of imperfect classification and defective schedules, it is practically impossible for private shippers to ascertain the particular class to which any article belongs, and the rates which are applicable to it. In another part of the Parliamentary report reference is made to the great difficulty which private persons frequently encounter in approaching a railway company and securing information which ought to be at their disposal. The report further discusses the disputed questions which arise out of station and terminal facilities and services incidental to conveyance. The committee called attention to the imperfect classification of goods and the lack of uniformity in these classifications and in the rates based upon them. Almost every railway company, says this committee, charges rates under several different charters, applicable to different portions of the same system, and that in some cases reference must be made to more than 50 charters, in order to determine the various rates the company is authorized to charge. The committee is unable to discover any general principle on which maximum rates have been fixed or in accordance with which articles have been classified; and in many cases the exceptions are so numerous and the determination of the rate otherwise so uncertain that an ordinary trader will prefer applying to a railway official to quote the rate. Railway charges represent all sorts of anomalies, and many witnesses urged the general advantages in fixing rates on some intelligible principle. Another complaint, which in these times of rapid railway consolidation certainly does not find such wide application in the United States, is that regarding the needless expense involved in the duplication of managements, as illustrated by the railways of Ireland, which were then represented by 270 directors, 37 secretaries, 20 managers, and a corresponding staff of subordinate officers for the administration of railways having a capital of £36,000,000; whereas the Great Western Railway of England, having a capital of nearly twice that amount, is managed by a single board of 18 directors, a secretary, and a general manager."

Many witnesses testified before the committee to the relutance of traders to make complaints, because of the pecuniary or other disadvantage to which the railway might subject such a witness. Furthermore, the testimony showed that, because of the great interests involved in the litigation and the losses almost inevitably accompanying even a successful suit, together with the great inconveniences encountered, shippers were prevented from bringing action. It is a noteworthy fact, however, that the committee did not hear many complaints against personal discriminations. The report on railway rates and charges for 1893 contains the following significant sentence: "Very few cases have been brought before the commission, and the number of times on which its members have been engaged in court has not averaged more than 23 in each year." In England, as well in the United States, there probably exist good reasons for this, some of which have been indicated in the discussion of the report of 1882. That legal actions should be so few is not surprising when competent authority asserts that "law reports show no case of a recovery for damages resulting from a transportation rate unreasonable in and of itself."

It is facts like these which the writer had in mind in formulating the earlier statement in this report that a feeling of absolute helplessness was bound to overcome an aggrieved shipper after investigating the efficiency of the machinery through which our railway laws are administered.

Canada. The three charters submitted by the minister of railways as typical of those granted under Canadian law vary in length from 2 to 6 octavo pages. Each

66

of the charters contains a preamble in which reference is made to a petition previously presented to Her Majesty's Government. The names of the incorporators are given, and the project is declared to be a work for the general advantage of Canada." Section 306 of the general railway law pronounces certain Canadian railways works for the general advantage of the country, and provides that every branch line or railway now or hereafter connecting with or crossing these lines of railway shall be regarded as a work for the general advantage of Canada. This feature of the Canadian law is similar to the declaration of public utility required under French law, and also similar to declarations made

under earlier laws in the North Atlantic States. The Canadian charters indicate that there is room for those variations in law which grow out of differences in individual and local conditions. A railway projected through a thinly settled frontier district is very different from one to be operated in a densely populated fertile country. This the Canadian charters recognize and the general law permits. The special railway acts of Canada are little more than a means of providing for the peculiarities of the particular road authorized under the act, and specifying to what extent provisions of the general law shall or shall not apply in that particular case. These charters state the amount of capital stock to be issued, and places a definite limitation upon any future issue of bonds, debentures, or other railway securities in proportion to the length of the railway constructed. This supplies a noteworthy provision in which, it will be recalled, one of the greatest weaknesses of the American railway charters was found. Both the general law and the special charters specify to what extent public aid may be received; and one of these special charters makes provisions for agreements with other railways, subject to the approval of two-thirds of the shareholders and the governor in council.

99.66

Coming now to a consideration of the general railway law of Canada, attention should be called at the outset to the list of definitions with which the act opens. Much confusion and indefiniteness has resulted from this lack of definition in American laws. The Canadian law defines such terms as company," "county," "court," "department,' deputy," "goods," "highway," "inspecting engineer, "judge," "justice," "lines," "map or plans," near," "owner," "railway," "railway company," "sheriff," "special act," "toll," "tariff," the undertaking," and "working expenditure." Neither the American interstate-commerce act nor the general laws of our States contain definitions of the term "railway.” (The so-called definition of the interstate-commerce act does not define.)

Supreme administrative control over railways is vested in a railway committee of the privy council, composed of the minister of railways and canals, who is chairman of the committee, the minister of justice, and two or more other members of the Queen's privy council for Canada, who, from time to time, are appointed by the governor in council. For purposes of comparison with the powers of American railway commissions, the powers of the railway committee of Canada are here stated in full:

The railway committee may

(a) Regulate and limit the rate of speed at which railway trains and locomotives may be run in any city, town, or village, or in any class of cities, towns, or villages described in any regulation; limiting, if the said railway committee thinks fit, the rate of speed within certain-described portions of any city, town, or village, and allowing another rate of speed in other portions thereof-which rate of speed shall not in any case exceed 6 miles an hour unless the track is properly fenced.

(b) Make regulations with respect to the use of the steam whistle within any city, town, or village, or any portion thereof.

(c) Make regulations with respect to the method of passing from one car to another either inside or overhead, and for the safety of railway employees while passing from one car to another, and for the coupling of cars.

(d) Impose penalties, not exceeding $20 for each offense, on every person who offends against any regulation made under this section-which penalties shall be recoverable upon summary conviction.

2. The imposition of any such penalties shall not lessen or affect any other liability which any person may have incurred.

11. The railway committee shall have power to inquire into, hear, and determine any application, complaint, or dispute respecting

(a) Any right of way over or through lands owned or occupied by any company. (b) Changes in location for lessening a curve, reducing a gradient, or benefiting the railway, or for other purposes of public advantage.

(c) The construction of branch lines exceeding one-quarter of a mile in length, but not exceeding 6 miles.

(d) The crossing of the tracks of one company by the tracks of another.

(e) The alignment, arrangement, disposition, or location of tracks.

(f) The use by one company of the tracks, stations, or station grounds of another company.

(g) The construction of works in navigable rivers.

(h) The construction of railways upon, along, and across highways.

(i) The proportion in which the cost of fencing the approaches to crossings on railways constructed or under construction on the 19th of April, 1884, shall be borne by the company and the municipality or person interested.

(j) The compensation to be made to any person or company in respect of any work or measure directed to be made or taken, or the cost thereof, or the proportion of such cost to be borne by any person or company.

(k) Tolls and rates for the transportation of passengers and freight.

(1) The adjustment of such tolls and rates between companies.

(m) Running powers or haulage.

(n) Traffic arrangements.

(0) Transshipment or interchange of freight.

(p) Unjust preferences, discriminations, or extortions.

(q) Any highway, street, ditch, or sewer, water, gas, or other pipes or mail s over or through lands owned or occupied by the company.

(r) Any matter, act, or thing which by this or the special act is sanctioned, required to be done, or prohibited.

In addition, the committee has power to investigate accidents, and to inspect railways and accessory works, examine books, papers, administer oaths, and so on. An important difference in the powers of the Canadian and American commissions lies in the standing given to the decisions of the Canadian committee. Subject to modifications by its own order, "every decision and order of the railway committee shall be final; provided, always, that either party may petition the governor in council, and the governor in council may, in his discretion, rescind, change, or vary such order as he deems just and proper."

The provisions of the law relating to incorporation contain nothing noteworthy except that some definite relation is maintained between capital stock and the length of the railway, and that a financial qualification is required of directors, no shareholder being eligible to this position unless owning 20 shares of stock absolutely in his own right. Petitions for a private charter must be heard by the minister of railways, and if, after such hearing, the desirability of building the projected road has been established, this official issues a certificate declaring such projected road to be necessary in the public interest. Plans and surveys are required containing a general description of the land, names of owners and occupiers, and everything else necessary for the right understanding of such map or plan and profile. The minister examines these plans and must permit persons interested to secure access to the same. Finally, when the road is completed, another map must be deposited with the minister within 6 months after the opening of traffic. The law contains specific provisions governing crossings and junctions. Periodical inspections are required, and, upon the report of an inspecting engineer, a railway may be condemned, repairs and modifications ordered. The by-laws and rules of the company must be submitted in writing and approved by the governor in council; until such approval has been given the same have no force or effect.

Rates are established in the first instance by the company itself; but the governor in council, through the minister, may from time to time prescribe uniform classifications of freight, which the company is bound to accept; and all rates must finally be approved by the governor in council. Schedule and rates, after revision by the governor in council, must be published and posted and kept in places convenient of access for shippers. Provisions on discriminations and special rates are much like analogous sections in American laws and equally strong in their prohibitions. The influence of water competition is recognized, and companies are permitted to discriminate under the stress of such competition; but secret rates of any kind are forbidden.

Although one railway company is enjoined from purchasing or otherwise acquiring shares of stock, bonds, and securities issued by another railway company in Canada, close traffic arrangements may be entered into under the law, as the following quotation will indicate:

"The directors of any company may, at any time, make and enter into any agreement or arrangement with any other company, either in Canada or elsewhere, for the regulation and interchange of traffic passing to and from the company's railways, and for the working of the traffic over the said railways respectively, or for either of those objects separately; and for the division and apportionment of tolls, rates, and charges in respect of such traffic; and generally in relation to the management and working of the railways, or any of them, or any part thereof, and of any railway or railways in connection therewith, for any term not exceeding 21 years; and to provide, either by proxy or otherwise, for the appointment of a joint committee or committees for the better carrying into effect any such agreement or arrangement, with such powers and functions as are considered necessary or expedient; subject to the consent of two-thirds of the stockholders voting in person or by proxy, and also to the approval of the governor in council.”

The above are the most noteworthy features of the Canadian law. The usual provisions relating to safety appliances, bells, whistles, regularity of trains, handling of baggage, guarding crossings, investigating accidents, etc., are incorporated in the act; but all these are rather of a secondary nature and do not differ essentially from analogous sections of the best laws in our own States.

India. The early Indian railway charters took the form of contracts between the East India Company and the railway companies. To illustrate this early type of charters, the leading features of the contract between the East India Company and the Great Indian Peninsula Railway will be given.

The Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company was incorporated under an act of Parliament for the purpose of constructing and maintaining such railways as the company jointly with the East India Company might determine. In the determination of the route the East India Company agreed to cooperate with the railway company; also in the construction of the road, and, in addition, to provide the necessary lands. The East India Company reserved the right of establishing grades, fixing the weight of rails, and the manner of laying them. The usual provisions governing the capital stock and its division into shares were inserted. The number and speed of trains to be operated by the railway company was subject to the approval of the East India Company. The rates charged for passengers and freight were likewise subject to approval by the East India Company, and whenever the net receipts exceeded 10 per cent, reductions in rates were to be made. The East India Company reserved the right to purchase the railway company on 6 months' notice at the end of 25 and also 50 years, and at the end of 90 years the charter was to expire and the entire railway buildings and fixtures were to revert to the East India Company on payment of the full value of the plant. In the board of directors the company was represented by one member. Periodical accounts, showing the financial condition of the road, were to be submitted to the East India Company. If at any time the East India Company should find the service inadequate or unsafe, and should be compelled to order repairs or improvements, the same could be ordered done at the expense of the railway company by withholding the sums of money thus expended from the interest which the East India Company had guaranteed to the railway company.

The later railway charters of India are in most essentials similar to those of England and Canada, with the exception that the secretary of state is capable, under the law, of exercising unusually large powers. In fact, he seems to have almost absolute control over the railways. The State reserves important rights, which will be considered under the general law, and insists upon systematic train service and adequate facilities of traffic in general. The military features are somewhat important. The charter to which reference is here made was granted in 1892, and, like the general laws, begins with a number of definitions. The road is located under the direction of the secretary of state, under whose guidance, likewise, stations, equipment, and improvements are ordered. Maximum and minimum rates are not provided, but all rate schedules are subject to the approval of the secretary. Railway property may be used for establishing telegraph lines, and all employees in the telegraph service must be provided with free transportation. The secretary of state becomes financially responsible for capital outlays, but the company pays a fixed rate of interest, and keeps such accounts as the secretary of state may require. All moneys must be handed to the secretary and accounts audited by him. Net earnings are to be divided between the secretary of state and the railway company in proportion to the amount of stock held by them respectively. Junctions with other railways may be established if this is necessary for the perfection of the railway system of India. This same subject is more fully dwelt with in the general laws, which will next be considered.

Like the general law of Canada, the Indian Railways' Act begins with a number of important definitions, including such terms as "ferry,' ,"inland water," "railway administration," "railway servant," "inspector," goods," "rolling stock," etc. Administrative power over railways is vested in a railway commission, composed of 3 members, 1 law and 2 lay commissioners. One of the lay commissioners must be experienced in railway affairs. The law commissioner shall act as chairman. The commission has jurisdiction in cases arising out of complaints of violation of the law, agreements required or authorized to be referred to arbitration, and such other cases as may be brought before it on application through the governorgeneral in council. In hearing cases the commission may exercise all the powers which are exercised in the hearing of an original civil suit by a high court. A majority decides, and the "final order in the case shall be by way of injunction and not otherwise." As in case of Canada, no appeal lies from the commission upon any question of fact on which 2 of the commissioners are agreed. In case of an appeal from the order of the commission, the court, of which the law commissioner was a judge, shall hear the same. The governor-general in council