"Section 43. Where the promoters of a tramway in any district are not the local authority, the local authority, if, by resolution passed at a special meeting of the members constituting such local authority they so decide, may within six months after the expiration of a period of twenty-one years from the time when such promoters were empowered to construct such tramway, and within six months after the expiration of every subsequent period of seven years, . . . . with the approval of the Board of Trade, by notice in writing require such promoters to sell, and thereupon such promoters shall sell to them their undertaking, or so much of the same as is within such district, upon terms of paying the then value (exclusive of any allowance for past or future profits of the undertaking; or any compensation for compulsory sale, or other consideration whatsoever) of the tramway, and all lands, buildings, works, materials, and plant of the promoters suitable to and used by them for the purposes of their undertaking.”

At present there is a decided movement on the part of the town councils to avail themselves of this authority to purchase, as the leases expire, and to try the experiment of municipal operation also. In order to do this special sanction from Parliament must be obtained in every case. the session of 1896 the following bills were deposited: A bill to authorize the Aberdeen corporation to purchase and work the tramways and omnibuses.

For

A bill to authorize the corporation of Darlington after purchasing, to work tramways, under license of the Board of Trade, if the tramway cannot be leased at what is, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, an adequate rent.

A bill to empower the corporation of Sheffield to work and use their tramways.

A bill to empower the corporation of Swansea to work tramways, if unable to lease them at what is, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, an adequate rent.

Not only is there the general Tramway Act as a basis for organization and operation, there are also many statutory rules and orders made by the Board of Trade specifying details of construction, rate of speed, stopping places, etc.

Besides these rules, matters relating to rent, hours of labor for employees, frequency of car service and transfers for passengers, are often decided by contract between the town owning the tracks and the operating company. The Board of Trade is clothed with wide authority in the matter of issuing provisional orders for the construction of tramways, and its orders have nearly always been ratified by Parliament. Since the passing of the Tramways Act in 1870, down to Aug. 31st, 1895, there have been four hundred and thirtytwo orders applied for. Of these the Board of Trade has made three hundred and eighteen orders, of which three hundred have been confirmed by Parliament.

The general principles underlying the English tramway legislation are naturally the basis for the Canadian system. The sources of authority are the provincial legislatures, which have passed special acts incorporating the several street railway companies. Besides these special acts the legislature of Ontario, in 1895, passed the act known as "The Electric Railway Act, 1895"-a general act of 137 sections, containing some of the features of the English Tramway Act of 1870, and many rules and regulations relating to the conduct of the city railways of the Province. Quebec has no such general act, but the towns are given great latitude in the matter of control over the railways and are free to make with them contracts for operation, which shall specify rates of fare, details of service, compensation for use of streets, pavement charges, etc. In some of the larger cities of each province the municipality owns the franchise and the tracks, and leases the same to a private operating company, who pay a track rental ranging from $400 to $800 per mile per annum, and also a percentage upon the gross receipts. The leases are for a limited term, usually 20 or 30 years.

Many of the smaller cities require no franchise compensation, the companies paying simply a property tax. In some towns all taxes have been waived for five or ten years as an inducement to build the railway.

Frequency of car service and rates of fare are matters of contract between the city and the company. Pavement repairs by the company are very generally insisted upon, and even the number of hours of labor for employees is decided by city by-laws.

Provision for the acquisition of the lines by the city is also found in the contracts under which several companies operate.

London, Ont., may acquire the street railway in 1925 or at the end of any fifth year thereafter by paying the then value of the plant and property as fixed by arbitrators, the value of franchise not to be taken into consideration.

Montreal, Que., may acquire the street railway in 1922, or at the "expiration of every term of five years thereafter," on payment of the value of the company's real estate, appurtenances, plant and vehicles, to be determined by arbitrators, together with an additional 10 per cent. thereon.

Ottawa, Ont. and Toronto, Ont., may acquire the railways by purchase in 1923 and 1921 respectively, and the arbitrators shall consider only the actual value of the tangible property, exclusive of franchise values.

Although at the expiration of the company's charter the municipality is permitted to acquire and operate the railways, the actual working of the lines is not practiced by Canadian cities. In Toronto at the expiration of the old company's charter in 1891, the city operated the railway for the three summer months, but at a less profit than has since been realized from the track rentals and percentages received from the private company. On September 1st, 1891, the city abandoned the experiment of public administration and is now receiving $139,000 annually from the Toronto Railway Co., whose concession to use the streets runs until 1911 with privilege of renewal until 1921.' There is but one town in Canada which is now operating its railway, namely: Port Arthur, a small town in Western Ontario, where peculiar conditions induced the municipality to build the line at an expense of $115,000. The undertaking scarcely pays operating expenses, and the interest on its cost has to be met by local taxation.

Under the Canadian system, where matters of service, fares and even wages are determined by contract at the outset, the question of capitalization ceases to be one of much importance from a public standpoint. However, the capital liabilities are quite moderate as compared with railways in the States, the funded debt representing but $12,300 per mile,

1 The city of Toronto acquired the street railway in 1891 and operated the lines from May 16th to September 1st, a period of heavy summer traffic.

The balance of receipts over disbursements was $51,194.23, from which is to be deducted the interest on the cost of the enterprise amounting to $15,052.40. leaving $36,141.83 as the net profit for the three and one-half months.

After expending $67,180.14 as the city's share of the counsel fees, arbitrators' fees, witnesses' and valuators' fees and other incidental payments connected with the arbitration, and the transfer of the railway to the city, and after municipal operation for three months and a half, the city leased the lines to the Toronto Railway Co. Under this lease the city received $41,102.04 as mileage and percentage on gross receipts in the last four months of the same year (1891).

In 1895 for the last half of May and during the months of June, July and August, the city received in rentals and percentages $42,808.96, as against a profit of $36,141.83 during civic operation in the corresponding months of 1891.

Thus there seems to be little foundation for the assertion that the civic operation was conducted with any marked financial benefit to the city.

and the share capital but $37,900 per mile, as against $40,800 of bonds and $54,200 of stock on United States roads.

As illustrating the extent to which the town can dictate the conditions of railway operation and also of the manner in which the public interests are guarded by the provincial legislature of Quebec, the charter recently granted to the Sherbrooke Street Railway Co. is of interest. It provides that the company shall not exercise any of its powers without first obtaining the consent of the municipal council, granted upon an affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of the whole number of councillors, that the amount borrowed by the company shall not exceed 75 per cent. of the actual paid up stock; that exclusive rights to operate a railway shall not be granted for more than forty years; that the municipal council may make any agreement with the company for the payment of compensation by the company for the use of the roads, streets, lanes and bridges, for the time and speed of running cars, and for the rates of fares.

Having examined some of the main points of similarity and divergence between the legislative treatment of street railways in the United States, England and Canada, it may be of interest to see how far the foreign practice and methods can with safety and advantage be applied to the conditions of life in American cities.

Any comparison between the British and American systems will be utterly useless and to no purpose until we have taken into the reckoning the differences of habit and thought of the peoples and the great influence of local customs and prejudices. An experiment in a new mode of propulsion that would suit Chicagoans might be too radical for the people of Edinburgh, though experiments in municipal operation of semi-public works might be sanctioned in Scotland which would not be attempted in America. Conservative by nature, the English might be expected to hesitate before adopting the trolley car in place of the horse car; sensitive to the rights of the public and with municipal officers of training and ability, they would surround tramway operation with limitations and restrictions to protect the interests of