sating advantages to the railway com, pany, and will make its investment in said properties incapable of earning a fair and reasonable return upon the amount of its investment therein; (c) because it deprives the railway company of the equal protection of the laws. Myles Salt Co. v. Iberia & S. M. Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 478, 60 L. ed. 392, L.R.A.1918E, 190, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 204; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437. The state has the right to reserve the power to alter or amend the charter of a corporation, or to alter or amend or repeal the laws under which the corporation is organized. Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 53 L. ed. 81, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33. Where the right is reserved, either by the Constitution or by statute, the provision of the law to this effect be comes automatically a part of the charter of corporations thereafter organized. Re College Hill Land Asso. 157 Cal 596, 108 Pac. 681; Shiloh Turnp. Co. v. Bates, 80 N. J. L. 171, 76 Atl. 448. But this reserved right does not authorize the confiscation or destruction of property of corporations, or the taking of such property without compensation, and it must be construed subject to the restrictions of the state and Federal Constitutions forbidding the taking of property without due process of law Delaware, L. & W. R. Co. v. Public Utilities Comrs. 85 N. J. L. 28, 88 Atl. 849; State ex rel. Wausau Street R. Co. v. Bancroft, 148 Wis. 124, 38 L.R.A. (N.S.) 526, 134 N. W. 330; Berea College v. Kentucky, 211 U. S. 45, 53 L. ed. 81, 29 Sup. Ct. Rep. 33; Grand Trunk Western R. Co. v. South Bend, 227 U. S. 544, 57 L. ed. 633, 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 405, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 303; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Wisconsin, 238 U. S. 491, 59 L. ed. 1423, L.R.A. 1916A, 1133, P.U.R.1915D, 706, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 869. The statute, as construed by the state courts, violates the contract clause of the Constitution, in that it impairs the obligation of the contracts between the state of New Jersey and the Paterson & Hudson River Railroad Company and the Paterson & Ramapo Railroad Company, to whose rights the Erie Railway Company has succeeded, by imposing upon the Erie Railway Company a greater duty, with respect to the construction and maintenance of grade crossings, than was imposed upon the two companies. West Jersey & S. R. Co. v. Woodbury, 80 N. J. Eq. 412, 84 Atl. 1047; State, Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., Prosecutors, v. East Orange, 41 N. J. L. 127; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Orange, 63 N. J. L. 252, 43 Atl. 730, 47 Atl. 363; Morris Canal & Bkg. Co. v. State, 24 N. J. L. 62; Marino v. Central R. Co. 69 N. J. L. 628, 56 Atl. 306; State, Central R. Co., Prosecutor, v. Bayonne, 51 N. J. L. 428, 17 Atl. 971; Paterson, N. & N. Y. R. Co. v. Nutley, 72 N. J. L. 123, 59 Atl. 1032; Hudson County v. New York Bay R. Co. 84 N. J. L. 354, 86 Atl. 381; State v. Lackawanna R. Co. 84 N. J. L. 289, 86 Atl. 386. the contract The statute violates clause and the due process clause in that it impairs the obligation of the contracts between the Erie Railroad Company and the Public Service Railway Company by altering their respective rights and duties as fixed by the contracts, in that it fixes a maximum proportion to be paid by the Public Service Railway Company, without regard to the terms of the contract, and without regard to the proportion of the danger or impediment created by the Public Service Railway Company. New York & L. B. R. Co. v. Atlantic Highlands R. B. & L. B. Electric R. Co. 55 N. J. Eq. 522, 35 Atl. 389, 37 Atl. 736; Re Saddle River Traction Co. - N. J., 41 Atl. 107; West Jersey & S. R. Co. v. Atlantic City & Suburban Traction Co. 65 N. J. Eq. 613, 56 Atl. 899; Jersey City, H. & P. Street R. Co. v. New York, S. & W. R. Co. 62 N. J. Eq. 396, 53 Atl. 709; Watchung R. Case (unreported); Re West End & L. B. R. Co. filed May 7, 1896 (unreported); Re Jersey Central Traction Co. filed Sept. 14, 1904 (unreported); Re New Jersey & H. River R. & Ferry Co. filed Dec. 24, 1902 (unreported); Re Bergen Turnp. Co. dated July 1916 (unreported) Yick Wo. v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 30 L. ed. 220, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 55 L. ed. 290, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 275; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Ewing, 241 Pa. 581, 49 L.R.A. (N.S.) 977, 88 Atl. 775, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 157. The statute violates the 14th Amendment in that it is an unreasonable exercise of the police power. Sanitary Dist. v. Chicago & A. R. Co. 267 Ill. 252, 108 N. E. 312; Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U. S. 223, 49 L. ed. 169, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 18; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 38 L. ed. 585, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Holden v. Hardy, 169 U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 383; Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 540, 46 L. ed. 679, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Otis Elevator Co. v. Chicago, 263 Ill. 419, 52 L.R.A. (N.S.) 198, 105 N. E. 338; New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412, 419, 52 L. ed. 551, 554, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 324, 13 Ann. Cas. 957; Bosley v. McLaughlin, 236 U. S. 385, 59 L. ed. 632, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 345; Merrick v. N. W. Halsey & Co. 242 U. S. 568, 61 L. ed. 498, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 227; People V. Charles Schweinler Press, 214 N. Y. 395, L.R.A.1918A, 1124, 108 N. E. 639, Ann. Cas. 1916D, 1059; People v. Williams, 189 N. Y. 131, 12 L.R.A. (N.S.) 1139, 121 Am. St. Rep. 854, 81 N. E. 778, 12 Ann. Cas. 798; Re. West Jersey Traction Co. 59 N. J. Eq. 63, 45 Atl. 282; Newark v. Central R. Co. 73 N. J. Eq. 469, 67 Atl. 1009; Newark v. Erie R. Co. 75 N. J. Eq. 20, 71 Atl. 620; Wisconsin, M. & P. R. Co. v. Jacobson, 179 U. S. 287, 45 L. ed. 194, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; Washington ex rel. Oregon R. & Nav. Co. v. Fairchild, 224 U. S. 510, 56 L. ed. 863, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Houston & T. C. R. Co. v. Dallas, 98 Tex. 396, 70 L.R.A. 850, 84 S. W. 648; Northern C. R. Co.'s Appeal, 103 Pa. 621; Pennsylvania Schuylkill Valley Co. v. Philadelphia & R. R. Co. 160 Pa. 232, 28 Atl. 771; Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. R. Co. v. State Public Utilities Commission, 273 Ill. 210, 112 N. E. 689; Connecticut Co. v. Stamford, 95 Conn. 26, 110 Atl. 554; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 238 Fed. 384; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. Ochs, 249 U. S. 416, 63 L. ed. 679, P.U.R.1919D, 498, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 343; Re Christensen, 43 Fed. 243; Grainger v. Douglas Park Jockey Club, 78 C. C..A. 199, 148 Fed. 513, 8 Ann. Cas. 997; Sargent v. Rutland R. Co. 86 Vt. 328, 85 Atl. 654; Montana Co. v. St. Louis Min. & Mill. Co. 152 U. S. 160, 38 L. ed. 398, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506; Security Trust & S. V. Co. v. Lexington, 203 U. S. 323, 51 L. ed. 204, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 87; Central of Georgia R. Co. v. Wright, 207 U. S. 127, 52 L. ed. 134, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 47, 12 Ann. Cas. 463; East Side Levee & Sanitary Dist. V. East St. Louis & C. R. Co. 279 Ill. 123, 116 N. E. 720; Milwaukee v. Railroad Commission, 162 Wis. 127, P.U.R.1916C, 592, 155 N. W. 948. Mr. George S. Hobart argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error in No. 35: The power to require an owner of property to make alterations is limited by the requirement that such alterations shall be reasonable in nature, to be determined not only by the nature and extent of the alterations required to be made, but by the expense entailed in relation to the value and nature of the property involved in the proposed alterations. Health Dept. v. Trinity Church, 145 N. Y. 40, 27 L.R.A. 710, 45 Am. St. Rep. 579, 39 N. E. 833; 2 Tiedeman, State & Federal Control of Persons & Property, p. 988; Helena v. Dwyer, 64 Ark. 424, 39 L.R.A. 266, 62 Am. St. Rep. 206, 42 S. W. 1071. The order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, and the statute upon which the same was based, deny the water company the equal protection of the laws, contrary to the provisions of the 14th Amendment. Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247. Mr. George S. Hobart argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error in No. 36: Telegraph lines, when extending through different states, are instruments of interstate commerce, and the messages passing over such lines from tion of such commerce. one state to another constitute a por Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067; Western U. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 30 L. ed. 1187, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 40 L. ed. 1105, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; WestCo. 218 U. S. 406, 54 L. ed. 1088, 36 ern U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Mill. L.R.A. (N.S.) 220, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59, 21 Ann. Cas. 815; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 55 L. ed. 498, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399; Western U. L. ed. 1457, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 955, 5 N. Teleg. Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542, 58 C. C. A. 1024; Gardner v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 145 C. C. A. 399, 231 Fed. 405. The order under review and the stat ute upon which the same is based impose a burden upon the interstate traffic of the telegraph company. Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247. The order and the statute impair the obligation of the telegraph company's contracts with the Erie Railroad Company. Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U. Teleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; State, Hudson Teleph. Co., Prosecutor, v. Jersey City, 49 N. J. L. 303, 60 Am. Rep. 619, 8 Atl. 123; Phillipsburg Electric Lighting, Heating & P. Co. v. Phillipsburg, 66 N. J. L. 505, 49 Atl. 445; United Electric Co. v. Bayonne, 73 N J. L. 410, 63 Atl. 996; Owensboro v. Cumberland Teleph. & Teleg. Co. 230 U. S. 59, 66, 57 L. ed. 1389, 1393, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 988. Pensacola Teleg. Co. v. Western U., telegraph company the equal protecTeleg. Co. 96 U. S. 1, 24 L. ed. 708; tion of the laws. Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Texas, 105 U. S. 460, 26 L. ed. 1067; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Pendleton, 122 U. S. 347, 30 L. ed. 1187, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1126; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. James, 162 U. S. 650, 40 L. ed. 1105, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 934; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Kansas, 216 U. S. 1, 54 L. ed. 355, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 190; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Commercial Mill. Co. 218 U. S. 406, 54 L. ed. 1088, 36 L.R.A. (N.S.) 220, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 59, 21 Ann. Cas. 815; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Crovo, 220 U. S. 364, 55 L. ed. 498, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 399; Western U. Teleg. Co. v. Brown, 234 U. S. 542, 58 L. ed. 1457, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 955, 5 N. C. C. A. 1024; Postal Teleg.-Cable Co. v. Baltimore, 24 L.R.A. 161, note. The improvement ordered is attempted to be justified on the theory that it will remove danger to public safety and impediment to public travel on the public streets. It is therefore neither more nor less than an improvement of the public streets. It should, therefore, be paid for either by assessments for special benefits or by general taxation. State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 36 N. J. L. 56; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; Davis v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 144, 23 Atl. 276. 15 Cyc. 578, 579. Mr. George S. Hobart argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error in No. 37: An individual or a corporation is entitled to receive compensation for interference with switch connections or other shipping facilities, due to a change in the location or grade of main line tracks. Chicago, S. F. & C. R. Co. v. McGrew, 104 Mo. 282, 15 S. W. 931; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Blacker, 178 Mass. 386, 59 N. E. 1020; Chicago, P. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wolf, 137 Ill. 360, 27 N. E. 78; Chicago v. Walker, 251 Ill. 629, 96 N. E. 536. The case is analogous to a compulsory payment of a special tax or assessment for the benefit of the general public without any corresponding benefit. State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 36 N. J. L. 56; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; Davis v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 144, 23 Atl. 276; Houck v. Little River Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. 254, 60 L. ed. 266, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 58; Myles Salt Co. v. 478, 60 L. ed. 392, L.R.A.1918E, 190, 36 Iberia & S. M. Drainage Dist. 239 U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 204. The equal protection of the laws means subjection to equal laws, applying alike to all in the same situation. Southern R. Co. v. Greene, 216 U. S. 400, 54 L. ed. 536, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 287, 17 Ann. Cas. 1247. Mr. George S. Hobart argued the The order and the statute deny to the cause, and, with Mr. William B. Gour ley, filed a brief for plaintiffs in error ment on property of the company for in Nos. 38 and 39: special benefits. If the order means that either Morris & Company or the railroad company is required to make a violent change in the location of the plant of Morris & Company it is, to that extent, clearly invalid. Potter v. Public Utility Comrs. 89 N. J. L. 157, 98 Atl. 30. The order directing the construction of a new crossing at Montgomery street as a substitute for the present crossing at Franklin street, 500 feet distant, is an unwarranted exercise of power and invalid. Van Horne v. Newark Pass. R. Co. 48 N. J. Eq. 332, 21 Atl. 1034; Lahr v. Metropolitan Elev. R. Co. 104 N. Y. 268, 10 N. E. 528. Abutting property owners on the part of Franklin street which the or der now under review directs to be vacated are entitled to subject such order to judicial scrutiny. Beecher v. Newark Street & Water Comrs. 64 N. J. L. 475, 46 Atl. 166, affirmed in 65 N. J. L. 307, 47 Atl. 466; Morris & C. Dredging Co. v. Jersey City, 64 N. J. L. 142, 45 Atl. 917; Lambert v. Paterson, 72 N. J. L. 437, 60 Atl. 1131; Sherwood v. Paterson, 88 N. J. L. 456, 94 Atl. 311. Mr. Charles E. Hughes also argued for plaintiffs in error in Nos. 35-39. Mr. Frank Bergen argued the cause and filed a brief for plaintiff in error in No. 40: The order under review, so far as it relates to the street railway company is an invalid effort to exercise the power of taxation. State, Morris & E. R. Co., Prosecutors, v. Jersey City, 36 N. J. L. 56; State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Elizabeth, 37 N. J. L. 330; Davis v. Newark, 54 N. J. L. 144, 23 Atl. 276. The order, so far as it relates to the street railway company, is not a legitimate exercise of the police power. License Cases, 5 How. 583, 12 L. ed. 292; Com. v. Alger, 7 Cush. 85; Re Jacobs, 98 N. Y. 98, 50 Am. Rep. 636; Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. v. Vosburg, 238 U. S. 56, 59 L. ed. 1199, L.R.A.1915E, 953, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 675; Freund, Pol. Power, § 612; Maxwell v. Goetschius, 40 N. J. L. 383, 388, 29 Am. Rep. 242. Property lawful in itself, and being lawfully used, is not, nor is its use, a nuisance; and consequently the owner cannot be compelled by the police power to abandon or change the use of it, or to change its location, or destroy it, at his own expense. Hinchman v. Paterson Horse R. Co. 17 N. J. Eq. 77, 86 Am. Dec. 252; Grey ex rel. Simmons v. Paterson, 60 N. J. Eq. 388, 48 L.R.A. 717, 83 Am. St. Rep. 642, 45 Atl. 995; State v. Erie R. Co. 84 N. J. L. 661, 46 L.R.A. (N.S.) 117, 87 Atl. 141; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 31 L. ed. 205, 8 .Sup. Ct. Rep. 273; Vreeland v. Forest Park Reservation Commission, 82 N, J. Eq. 349, 46 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1062, 87 Atl. 435, Ann. Cas. 1915B, 1153; Boyd V. United States, 116 U. S. 635, 29 L. ed. 754, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 524. Messrs. L. Edward Herrmann and Frank H. Sommer argued the cause, and, with Mr. Francis Scott, filed a brief for defendants in error: State, New Jersey R. & Transp. Co., Prosecutor, v. Newark, 27 N. J. L. 185; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Newark, 10 N. J. The common law imposes upon a railEq. 352; State, Morris & E. R. Co., road company the duty to maintain the Prosecutor, v. Minton, 23 N. J. L. 529; public highways where they cross the State, Agens, Prosecutor, v. Newark, railroad, in condition for safe and con37 N. J. L. 415, 18 Am. Rep. 729; Tide-venient use at all times and under all water Co. v. Coster, 18 N. J. Eq. 519, circumstances. This duty is continuing 90 Am. Dec. 634; Bernards Twp. v. and extends to the separation of the Allen, 61 N. J. L. 228, 39 Atl. 716; Van grades of the public highway and the Cleve V. Passaic Valley Sewerage railroad whenever such separation is Comrs. 71 N. J. L. 574, 108 Am. St. reasonably necessary for safety and conRep. 754, 60 Atl. 214; State, Lydecker, venience. The duty applies alike to Prosecutor, v. Drainage & Water Comrs. highways in existence when the rail41 N. J. L. 154; State, Baldwin, Prose- road was laid out and to those concutor, v. Fuller, 39 N. J. L. 576. structed later. The requirement in the order that the State ex rel. Clara City v. Great street railway company shall pay 10 Northern R. Co. 130 Minn. 489, L.R.A. per cent of the cost of abolishing the 1918D, 1153, 153 N. W. 879; State ex three grade crossings is not an assess-rel. St. Paul v. M. Transfer R. Co. 80 Minn. 108, 50 L.R.A. 656, 83 N. W. 32; | State ex rel. St. Paul v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 122 Minn. 280, 142 N. W. 312; Wabash R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 176 Ind. 428, 95 N. E. 673; State ex rel. Minneapolis v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 98 Minn. 380, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 298, 120 Am. St. Rep. 581, 108 N. W. 261, 8 Ann. Cas. 1047; Clark v. Elizabeth, 61 N. J. L. 575, 40 Atl. 616, 737; Palmyra v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 62 N. J. Eq. 614, 50 Atl. 369. The laws of New Jersey impose upon railroad companies operating within the state a continuing duty at all times and under all circumstances to keep the public highways, where they cross the railroad, in a condition fit for safe and convenient use. The duty so imposed is applicable alike to public highways existing at the time of the laying out of the railroad, or later extended there over. South Amboy v. Pennsylvania R. Co. 76 N. J. Eq. 57, 73 Atl. 852, same case 77 N. J. Eq. 244, 76 Atl. 1038; Central R. Co. v. State, 32 N. J. L. 220; State v. Lackawanna R. Co. 84 N. J. L. 293, 86 Atl. 386. The Grade Crossing Elimination Act, under which the proceedings which terminated in the judgments here under review were initiated, simply provides a definite method of enforcing the duty imposed by the common law, the provisions of the charters, and the provisions of the General Railroad Act, in specific cases. Hudson County v. Central R. Co. 68 N. J. Eq. 500, 59 Atl. 303. The source of the state's authority to adopt regulations for public safety at grade crossings is the police power of the state. Pittsburg & C. R. Co. v. Southwest Pennsylvania R. Co. 77 Pa. 173; Morris & E. R. Co. v. Orange, 63 N. J. L. 258, 43 Atl. 730, 47 Atl. 363. The elimination of grade crossings is within the scope of this power. New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Norwood v. New York & N. E. R. Co. 161 Mass. 259, 37 N. E. 199; Illinois R. Co. v. Copiah County, 81 Miss. 685, 33 So. 502; St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Fayetteville, 75 Ark. 534, 87 S. W. 1174; Cincinnati, I. & W. R. Co. v. Connerville, 218 U. S. 336, 54 L. ed. 1060, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93, 20 Ann. Cas. 1206; Missouri P. R. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 127, 59 L. ed. 157, 160, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82. The Grade Crossing Elimination Act and the order of the Board of Public Utility Commissioners, made in pursuance thereof, impose upon the railroad company part of the cost of the separation of grades. Neither the act nor the order is obnoxious in this particular to the due process clause of the Constitution. New York & N. E. R. Co. v. Bristol, 151 U. S. 556, 38 L. ed. 269, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 437; Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 561, 50 L. ed. 596, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 430, 58 L. ed. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400; Denver & R. G. R. Co. v. Denver, 250 U. S. 241, 63 L. ed. 958, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 450. Both the statute and order relate to highways existing at the time of the construction of the railroad and to highways laid out thereafter. In this respect neither the order nor the statute is obnoxious to the due process clause of the Constitution. State ex rel. Minneapolis v. St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. 98 Minn. 380, 28 L.R.A. (N.S.) 293, 120 Am. St. Rep. 581, 108 N. W. 261, 8 Ann. Cas. 1047; Northern P. R. Co. v. Minnesota, 208 U. S. 583, 52 L. ed. 630, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 341; Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Minneapolis, 232 U. S. 428, 58 L. ed. 671, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 400. The statute provides for the imposition of not exceeding 10 per cent of the cost directly chargeable to the elimination of the crossings used by the street railway company, upon that company. The order made in pursuance of the statute imposes 10 per cent of such costs upon the street railway company. Neither the statute nor the order in this respect is obnoxious to the due process clause of the Constitution. Missouri P. R. Co. v. Omaha, 235 U. S. 121, 59 L. ed. 157, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 82; Northern P. R. Co. v. Puget Sound & W. H. R. Co. 250 U. S. 332, 63 L. ed. 1013, 39 Sup. Ct. Rep. 474; Public Service R. Co. v. Public Utility Comrs. 89 N. J. L. 24, 98 Atl. 28, affirmed in 90 N. J. L. 715, 103 Atl. 1054; Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. R. Co. v. Railroad Commissioner (Detroit, Ft. W. & B. I. R. Co. v. Osborn) 127 Mich. 219, 62 L.R.A. 149, 86 N. W. 842; Fitchburg v. Boston & M. R. Co. 203 Mass. 304, 89 N. E. 438. The statute requires that changes in, or the removal of, the property or constructions of any telegraph, water, etc., |