1T6 RAILEOAD Percentage of total receipts to total capital and debt 18-8 Receipts to each mile of railroad 17,844 " to each Inhabitant $1282 Operating expenses $380,896,058 Percentage to receipts 68' 6 Net earnings. $189,570,958 Percentage to receipts 86'4 " to total capital and debt 4-5 Dividends paid $67,042.942 Percentage of dividends to capital stock The total mileage of railways in the United Kingdom has increased from 8,835 m. in 1855 to 13,289 in 1865, 15,376 in 1871, and 16,082 in 1873. Of the mileage in 1873, 11,369 m. were in England and Wales, 2,612 in Scotland, and 2,101 in Ireland. The authorized capital for the United Kingdom in 1873 was 676,686,- 586, of which 588,320,308 was paid in. The total receipts amounted to 57,742,000, inclu- ding 31,821,529 from freight, 28,858,892 from passengers, and 2,066,579 from rents, tolls, &c. The working expenditures were 30,752,848, and the net receipts 26,989,152. In 1874 the Dominion of Canada had 4,099 m. of railway. The length of railways in opera- tion in the chief countries of the European continent in or about 1872 was as follows: MllM. Austria, Cicleithan (1870) 8,724 Baden (1870), constructed by the state 580 Bavaria, constructed by companies 609 " " by the state 1,221 Belgium, constructed by companies 1,042 44 by the stite 962 Denmark, constructed by companies 166 " " by the state 874 France (1870) 10,847 Hesse 246 Holland, constructed by companies 429 by the state 014 Hungary (1S70) 2,151 Italy 4,087 Norway, constructed by companies 42 by the state 265 Portugal (1870) 489 Prussia, constructed by companies 4.788 by the state 8.918 Russia (1S74) 10,725 Saxony (1870), constructed by companies. 140 " by the state 687 Spain (1870) 8,880 Sweden, constructed by companies 461 " bythestate 787 Total. 52,424 Railroad Management. The policy of gov- ernments and countries in respect to the con- struction of railroads at first differed as wide- ly as the countries themselves, but now there may be said to be only two systems, the Eng- lish and the French. In England and the United States the initiative is given by pri- vate enterprise, and the entire control of op- erations is exercised by joint-stock compa- nies, through their officers or agents, subject only to the laws regulating and defining their powers. In France, Germany, Russia, and most countries of continental Europe, every- thing connected with railroads and other pub- lic works is organized on a systematic plan and conducted with complete uniformity. In England and America everything is left to ex- perience, and no fixed practice or general prin- ciple exists. Government plays an insignifi- cant part; when it has authorized the con- struction of a railroad and defined the powers of the company having it in hand, it goes no further. In France and most other countries the executive government determines the local- ities for which railway communication is to be provided, lays out the line, chooses the com- pany which is to make the road, or if no com- pany offers makes it itself, regulates the num- ber of trains, fixes the tariffs, controls the administration, and in short attends to the minutest details of construction, maintenance, and operation. The point of principal impor- tance in the comparison of the English and French railway systems is that, setting out with different policies private enterprise and free competition on one side, state control and monopoly on the other side both have ended in the division of the two countries among a few great companies, and the consequent tri- umph of monopolies. Starting from diametri- cally opposite principles, the two contrary sys- tems have reached nearly similar results. The construction of railways as a whole has been as rapid in France as in England ; their mileage is nearly equal, with not very different fares and nearly the same number of passengers and tons of freight per mile; while- in the United States the mileage is nearly five times as great as in either France or England, though the aggregate cost of the railroads in each of the three countries is nearly equal. In America the tendency is toward amalgamation and mo- nopoly. The richer companies are gradually absorbing the weaker ones, and yet so far the general result has been to cheapen transporta- tion and give the public greater and better facilities. In some instances consolidations have taken place to such an extent that the public has become alarmed, and efforts have been made, especially in Massachusetts, Wiscon- sin, and Illinois, through the agency of boards of railroad commissioners, to exercise such con- trol over the railroad system of the respective states as to properly harmonize the interests of the public and the companies. Many of the state legislatures have undertaken to equal- ize and control the fares and rates of freight by arbitrary enactments, while others have en- deavored to do so through their boards of com- missioners. As yet no practical settlement of the various questions has been reached. The railroad companies make the general claim that their charters are contracts with the state, which authorize them to regulate their own charges and control their own business, and which cannot be altered or amended directly or indirectly without their consent ; and final- ly that all efforts to do so are in contravention of the constitution of the United States, which prohibits the states from making laws impair- ing the obligation of contracts. The theory of those who assert that the states have the right to regulate the rates at which passengers and freights shall be carried by railroads, is that they are public highways, controlled by
