On the other hand, there is much that is valuable in existing laws. The growth of decades has produced many good results. No one can advance arguments adequate to justify the general repeal of existing laws and a substitution therefore of laws thought to be better. Amendments with a reconstruction of parts is probably a prudent rule. New conditions require new rules. Laws which were but poorly fitted to meet former conditions are much less adapted to meet the changed conditions of to-day.

Starting with England as the original area of diffusion, railway charters were carried into every quarter of the globe. The first that were landed on this side of the Atlantic bore close resemblances to their prototypes in the British Isles. Then, as they were carried westward, the carefulness of their construction and the comprehensiveness of their scope diminished as the distance from the Atlantic increased. The march across the continent consumed less than five decades, ending with the later sixties. Among the charters granted in Eastern States there are many which are relatively complete. In New England and in the Middle States there is little of that mutilation which characterizes the construction of charters farther west. In the West, charters frequently show great recklessness in their construction and enactment. Railways everywhere involve certain common matters of public and private interest. These common matters would

logically find their expression in common charter provisions. Such, however, is not the case. Generally speaking, the differences among railway charters are far greater than their similarities. These differences, furthermore, are not found chiefly in charters granted to railways running through territories which differ in topography, where differences would be warranted, but they are found in charters granted for the construction of railways through the same or essentially similar territory. The number of points treated in charters varies from about a dozen to more than forty. In a very small number of cases charters are even more fragmentary. The fragmentary charter may have been granted for an important railway, and the complete charter for a railway of local significance. The perfection of the charter and the importance of the railway do not generally travel in the same direction.

Railway charters are private, local, or special laws. Originally these were the only laws relating to railways found on our statute books, although in a single instance reference was made in a charter to a general law granted as early as 1808. This was an exception to a rule which was exceedingly general. In a number of states legis- · lators apparently sought to lighten their labors. by abbreviating charters. Charters were granted containing a few clauses relating to purely local and individual matters, followed by a blanket provision to the effect that the company thereby

incorporated shall enjoy all the rights and privileges previously granted to a certain other railway company. This practice led to greater uniformity in the contents of charters and was one of the factors which encouraged the enactment of general laws relating to all railways within the commonwealth in which such laws were enacted. The early general laws usually related to some specific point; such as sign boards, fences, right of way, and the ringing of bells. Gradually the scope of the general laws was extended, until finally they embraced all the provisions of the best private charters and became general laws for incorporation of railway companies. These general laws were frequently made a part of the general laws on corporations, although in many instances they have been kept separate to the present time. In fact, the latter appears to be the prevailing tendency. This is a commendable feature of contemporary railway history, for railways have so many peculiarities of their own that separate treatment of them in our laws is likely to result in better adjustments and less friction.

Having placed general railway laws upon the statute books, it would seem that the era of special charters had come to a close in the state for which the general law had been enacted. But such is not the case. Almost numberless instances could be cited in which special charters were granted without the least reference to the general law previously enacted. In some cases the special charters

were granted within incredibly short periods of time after the passage of the general law. Whatever else this may show, it reveals loose methods and carelessness in administration. Yet in spite of these slips and gaps, general legislation made steady gains, so that by about 1870 the era of special legislation may be said to have been passed. In the East it had been passed in most respects by about 1850. General legislation has obvious advantages over special legislation, in that it treats all railways alike and formulates a general policy in the observance of which the railways and the state are much more likely to get together. There exists greater similarity among successive general laws in a state than among successive charters granted by the same state; but among the general laws of different states the differences are frequently as great as among the special charters. These differences among the laws of different states are significant, especially from the point of view of a railway company whose system lies in different states. A railway system should be operated as a unified network. This is demanded alike by public and private interests. But how can the best results be obtained if the same system of railways is subjected to varying antagonistic or mutually exclusive provisions of law? This state of affairs must necessarily create dissatisfaction among both parties. Greater uniformity in the railway laws of the states is imperative. If this cannot be accomplished, a wider scope of federal

legislation suggests itself as a feasible solution. There can be no excuse for widely different methods of classification and rate schedules when the same commodities are concerned; nor should a multiplicity of reports be called for. A uniform rule of assessment and taxation is unquestionably desirable.

Railway legislation in the United States lacks adjustment, the machinery for making adjustments, and the machinery for administering with efficiency the laws supposed to be in force. The railway business is complex. It ministers to manifold wants. It has many interests. The law should somewhere delegate power which can be exercised with discretion by authorized administrative agents, rather than prescribe rigid rules for traffic matters which may require one type of decision to-day and the opposite type to-morrow. The easiest and perhaps the best way of providing the elements of elasticity and adjustment, which are now so generally lacking, is to invest a competent authority with ample discretionary powers.

The lack of elasticity in railway legislation is also illustrated by the many constitutional provisions which have been incorporated in the constitutions of various states. The chapter on Constitutional Provisions illustrates this. There are certain general and fundamental principles which can perhaps be incorporated in constitutions to advantage; such as, eminent domain, publicity, and equality of treatment. But rigid provisions relat