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. 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

roads. These three classes are, the primary network of railways of general interest, the secondary network of railways of general interest, and railways of local interest. The particular class to which a railway shall belong depends upon the place which is assigned to it by the authorities of the state in the "declaration of public utility." Belgium recognizes three classes, - railways of general interest, parochial, and urban railways. In Holland three classes also exist,― primary, secondary, and regional. The Austrian and Hungarian classifications are essentially like that of Prussia, including main and local roads. The Italian law of 1879 distinguishes between four classes, based upon the proportion of the total cost of the railways borne respectively by the federal government and by subordinate political unities. Secondary Italian railways are divided into five classes, depending upon the width of tracks, speed, curves, grades, etc.

The convenience of classifications of this kind is apparent; and, furthermore, such classifications are in themselves a recognition of varying degrees of importance attached to different kinds of railways. Under the laws of the different states in the Union, a short and insignificant road in an isolated corner of the state is governed by the same laws through which an attempt is made to control and regulate the most extensive system embracing thousands of miles of double, triple, and quadruple tracks. Along this line foreign legisla

tion may teach us a valuable lesson in that it points out the imperative necessity of recognizing in the law decisive differences in the social and economic importance of different railway systems.

Dogmatic adherence to the doctrine of free and unrestrained competition among railways is not a chief characteristic of foreign railway history. In England, Germany, France, and Austria, the limitations of competition were recognized in the deliberations accompanying the granting of the first charters. The construction of "competitive" lines within certain periods of time was usually prohibited. Railways were recognized as undertakings which possess characteristics differing widely from ordinary industrial enterprises. A British Parliamentary committee of 1872 reported that

competition between railways exists only to a limited extent, and cannot be maintained by legislation," and that "combination between railway companies is increasing, and is likely to increase, whether by amalgamation or otherwise." In France there were thirty-three railway companies in 1846; in 1855, there were twenty-four; in 1857, eleven; and in 1859, excepting eight subordinate lines, only six companies were left. These six constitute the great French railway companies of to-day, among whom the territory of France is parcelled out, each company enjoying exclusive privileges within its respective domains. For years Austrian railways have exercised the privilege of making traffic arrangements analogous to Ameri