attempts to begin their regeneration by setting aside their time-honored customs and degrading their natural leaders is, as has well been said, guilty of a murderous assault not merely upon an individual, but upon a society, an organism with an even intenser life and higher destinies. (Where native societies exist, in Africa, in Asia, and in Oceanica, they

should be allowed to continue under their native leaders and under their inherited social system) (The protecting power should confine itself to suppressing warlike outbreaks among neighboring tribes, and to supervising in general the native administration so as to prevent abuses and to bring to book such chiefs as are unendurably cruel and incapable) (But it should allow the natives to govern themselves according to their own customs and laws though it would, to follow out the suggestion of Sir George Goldie, make its own methods in the residential towns a model to the natives in all respects not only in matters of government, but of industry, commerce, and conduct. Thus the "civilized" towns of Africa. which are now disgraceful dens of vice might become true "cities of refuge."

Of course, political power and unquestioned authority would be necessary to accomplish these ends, but more important far than these would be friendly relations with the natives, and the feeling among the latter that they were being aided, not repressed and exploited. A system of this kind is not only flexible and adaptable to all conditions, but it has the further great merit of being inexpensive: the natives need no longer be taxed directly to meet the cost of services which bring them no benefit.

When we glance over the whole vast area of territory within which the Western powers now exercise political authority, we see that it falls into three classes of countries: (1) those adapted for European settlement South Africa, Canada, and Australia, where institutions of selfgovernment have been, or soon will be, established; (2) those in the tropics inhabited by a population whose native social institutions have been destroyed the West Indies and parts of the Philippines; and (3) the extensive regions occupied by native societies in central and northern Africa, Asia, and the islands of Oceanica. (The continued use of the Crown colony system seems to be advisable in small military and naval posts only, and in such dependencies where no adequate native institutions exist, and whose population cannot be organized into constituencies according to interests. Everywhere else more flexible institutions are desirable.

In general it may be said that the colonies where some form of

the protectorate has been consistently and faithfully applied have been the most successful ventures Thus France looks upon Tunis as her model colonial establishment; Great Britain has reason to be proud of her success in the Indian and Malaysian protectorates; and the great work accomplished by these methods in Java.is matter of common knowledge. This experience shows that nowhere in the world can the natives be helped by having even the most perfect institutions worked out for them; the only manner to benefit them in reality is to give them an opportunity to help themselves by developing in a natural manner their own customs and institutions PAUL S. REINSCH.

RAILWAY RATE REGULATION IN CANADA.

THE development of the railway system of Canada has been peculiarly dependent upon the government. In the early days, before confederation, the lack of capital was coupled with an appreciation of the part that would be played by the railway in the opening up of the country. And so it was but natural for government aid to be extended to a number of railways, of which the Grand Trunk was the most important. When the Canadian provinces entered confederation they had a little over 2,000 miles of railway. The terms upon which some of the provinces entered confederation led to the construction of additional railways. In addition to this a policy of subsidizing railways by a combination of governmental and municipal aid grew up. Under the stimulus of such a policy there has been a rapid expansion of the railway system. Canada has to-day about 18,000 miles of railway. Of the total increase since 1867 approximately one-half has been added since 1882. In proportion to population Canada is better supplied with railways than is the United States.

In the period from 1867 to 1873, as in the period prior to confederation, there was but little attention devoted to the possible need of railway regulation. Attention was devoted to the rapid development of the railway system. There was a general belief in the efficiency of competition. The Railway Act had indeed retained to Parliament the right to regulate the rates of a railway company when its earnings were in excess of fifteen per cent on the investment. Needless to say this provision was worth nothing.

It is noteworthy that the agitation in Canada in favor of more effective railway regulation began at a time when the subject was also attracting attention in the United States. The period of hard times led the representatives of the agricultural constituencies to complain of railway rates. In 1873 a bill was introduced into Parliament to provide that "tolls should be at all times charged equally to all persons and after the same rate per mile for all distances in respect of passengers and traffic." Complaints were also made that rates proportional to dis

tance were not obtained. The matter continued to attract the attention of Parliament until 1875.

It has been already indicated that the greatest expansion of the Canadian railway system dates from about 1882. It is from about that time that a new interest in railway regulation dates. Along with expansion went consolidation of railway systems. In the period beginning with 1880 there was a movement for consolidation of the railway systems of western Ontario. Then again, the Canadian Pacific, which obtained its charter in the early eighties, was endeavoring to obtain a westward connection, through Ontario, with the American railway system. In the pursuit of this policy it came in conflict with the Grand Trunk. This company, which has more than once set up the claim of vested interest as an offset to the expansion of competing lines, claimed that the Canadian Pacific was encroaching upon its territory. To head off this expansion, the Grand Trunk hurriedly obtained control of the Great Western, which paralleled its line in western Ontario, and which for years had been its rival. At the same time control was obtained over a number of branch lines, some of which have been a constant drain upon the resources of the company. The different amalgamations which were thus taking place led to the belief that rates would be increased, now that the assumed regulative effects of competition were removed.

In 1800 a Railway Commission bill, which was for the greater part a transcript of the English railway regulation of 1873, was introduced. into the Canadian Parliament. This was kept before the attention of Parliament for six years. Petition after petition poured in from the country districts of Ontario in favor of this measure. Finally, on an announcement in 1886 that the government would introduce legislation. dealing with the matter, the bill was dropped.

The next phase of the history of the regulative movement is concerned with the establishment of a Royal Commission. The latter was appointed in 1886, and it reported in 1888. The report of this Commission recognized that grievances existed and that more adequate machinery than at that time existed was necessary in order properly to deal with them. It considered that any tendency toward exorbitant rates in Canada was prevented by water competition and by the competition of American carriers. Dealing with the question of more adequate regulation, it was stated that the Interstate Commerce Commission was such a recent experiment that it was not possible to pronounce upon the success of the Commission plan. While a Commission existed in England, the conditions in that country differed to such an extent from those ex

isting in Canada that the experience from this source was not final. It was thought that the most practical solution of the difficulty was so to enlarge the powers of the Railway Committee of the Privy Council as to give it cognizance of rate grievances.

Although there have been movements in Canada, on one or two occasions, toward adopting the American policy of general railway acts, this policy has not been adopted. The English precedent has been followed. It may be noted in passing that Sir William Van Horne, expresident of the Canadian Pacific, has expressed himself as strongly in favor of a general railway law. The Canadian policy has been to pass a Railway Act, which is revised from time to time. This prescribes the general regulations under which the railways work, the formalities to be observed in connection with the issues of stocks and bonds, the powers possessed by the railway companies, etc. In addition to this each railway company has to obtain a special act of incorporation. This act prescribes the amount of bonds which may be issued. Unless specific exemptions are made in the special act chartering the railway, the company is subject to the provisions of the Railway Act. When any When any nice questions are in dispute in connection with the granting of the charter, these are fought out in the Railway Committee of the House of Commons. This body is to be sharply distinguished from the Railway Committee of the Privy Council. It is, strictly speaking, a committee on railway bills.

When in consequence of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Railways of 1886-88 changes were made in the Railway Act, the recommendations of the Commission were not followed in their entirety. The regulative phases of the law, as they stand at present, may be thus summarized. There is in existence a body known as the Railway Committee of the Privy Council-that is to say, a committee of the Cabinet. This is composed of designated members of the Cabinet, presided over by the Minister of Railways and Canals. Before this committee come the disputes arising under the provisions of the Railway Act. Under the amendments of 1888 there was added to the list of duties of this body the regulative supervision of railway rates. Before a railway can collect rates these must have been approved by the Governor-in-Council. The Governor-in-Council, or, in other words, the Cabinet, may change these rates at any time. It must, however, be remembered that these rates. are maximum rates, and that within the limits so fixed the railways may charge such rates as they please, and may change them without notice. Provision is made for a uniform classification, except in so far as American traffic is concerned. Rebates are prohibited; so also are discrimi