such secondary matters should laws aiming at the control of railways differ in the substantial elements of their contents. The experiences of for eign countries have frequently been brushed aside on the assumption that whatever success or failure may have characterized foreign effort, nothing of vital importance to American states could possibly be discerned therein because of differences in conditions which, it is alleged, exist between the United States and the respective foreign countries. No one will be inclined to deny that certain important differences do exist, but the position can be successfully maintained that, so far as railways are concerned, these differences do not, as a rule, touch upon the essential features of the rail way problem, and that along the large lines of industrial growth and development every important modern nation is cosmopolitan; that is, modern social and economic conditions have the world over become more and more alike, and, as this similarity increases, the need for similar legislation in all the different countries becomes increasingly urgent.

Railway charters-using this term in the sense of special legislation, as well as grants of railway charters under general laws are essentially alike the world over so far as the great nations are concerned. In all the different countries railway charters bear upon them the marks of lineal descent from early English charters, which in turn were copied directly from the charters granted to

canal and road companies. This similarity between railway and macadam or plank road charters can be readily detected in our laws. Many common road charters are identical in language with contemporary railway charters, the only differences lying in a few things peculiar to road companies, such as the smaller size of shares, provisions on toll gates, the use of the road by drovers, etc. Were one to take out of a railway charter and a common road charter clauses relating directly to these topics, it would probably be impossible to determine whether a certain charter had originally been granted to a common road or a railway company. Certain archaic features which were embodied in the Liverpool-Manchester charter may be discerned in charters of different states in the United States, as well as in those of foreign countries. One of the most common of these is the right of different shippers to use the same. track. One of the most serious objections brought against some of the early railway projects was the impossibility of using ordinary coaches and vehicles in the transportation of persons and property over railways. Inventors during the earlier decades of the nineteenth century devised contrivances by which carriages could be used on both common and rail roads. These provisions were inserted in some cases for the purpose of reserving to the state certain rights which it might otherwise find difficult to assert. It was thought that person or persons authorized to do

the state, or

so by the state, could become active competitors over the same tracks, and thus enforce rules of justice. The fallacy of this theory was soon discovered, but the archaic clauses continued to find their way into charters.

Several years ago a distinguished jurist stated in a public address that in Europe railways had been constructed in the beginning by public capital, while in the United States they had been built by private capital. Reference is here made to this address simply because it illustrates the prevalence of certain erroneous theories even among distinguished men. As a matter of fact the exact reverse is more nearly true. With the exception

of a few short lines, every railway of Europe, during the early decades of railway history, was constructed by private capital; while in the United States the first railways were generally built to a greater or less extent by public funds contributed in the form of land grants or subscriptions and bonuses from towns, counties, cities, states, and the federal government. The appeal to this alleged difference in the sources of railway funds in Europe and the United States is usually made for the purpose of explaining existing differences in methods of regulation and administration. Since this difference in the origin of funds does not exist, it cannot explain facts; but even if it did exist, it could not be made to explain the facts for which it is said to be the touchstone.

European countries resorted to special legisla

tion to a much smaller extent. A few private charters were usually first granted, after which incorporation was by general law. But the first private or special charters were subjected to the most rigid examination and public hearings and discussions. In these examinations, hearings, and discussions we find the origin of ideas and points of view which were later incorporated in general laws. The relative promptness and thoroughness with which European countries legislated upon railway subjects saved them from some of the excesses of the evils from which we have suffered. There are probably few if any abuses connected with railways which did not manifest themselves there, but these never gained such headway, because of the greater care and thoroughness exercised in remedial and preventive legislation.

Excepting taxation, there is practically no subject relating to railways with reference to which laws have been enacted which is not treated the same way in the law, whether it applies to an important trunk line or to a relatively unimportant local road. In other words, our laws do not recognize differences in the relative importance of railways. In the state of Wisconsin, for instance, there are two great systems which have a large mileage in the state, and several other great systems have branches within its borders. These railways clearly belong to the first class. Then there are several railways extending through the state, but going little or no farther. These consti

tute a second class. A third class is represented by a number of railways which have an autonomous existence, but which serve primarily as feeders for the largest systems. Ore and lumber railways, devoted solely to the transportation of commodities for their proprietors, constitute a fourth class. And for the sake of completeness private branches and switch lines may be added as a fifth class. It requires no lengthy argument to show that the greatest differences exist with respect to the relative degrees of importance represented by these five classes of railways; and while a single general law may advantageously cover provisions on points common to all these railways, additional legislation should be formulated for each separate class of railways. It seems highly inexpedient to attempt to regulate a great interstate system by means of the same laws which are fitted to a purely local line, and vice versa.

Next to the United States, England comes nearest to not having a legal classification. An English law of 1868 imposes less onerous duties upon "light railways," which are confined to a low maximum speed and a low maximum burden per axle. Prussia has from the first recognized primary and secondary railways; but not until 1892 were narrow-gauge and other local railways included in the term "railway" at all. railway" at all. French law formally recognizes only two classes, but a very rigid administrative division of the first class into two subclasses really creates a third class of