So long as an open construction account is kept, it will be difficult to find out what the real cost of working is, for, even with the best intentions on the part of the auditor, the difference between charges which should be debited "construction" and those properly chargeable to "working expenses" is often indistinct. New equipment, new stations and bridges, and new "superstructure," all better or on a larger scale than the old, may in some cases fairly belong to construction, or perhaps part of the outlay may belong to one account, and part to the other. It may be very troublesome to draw the line strictly. In short, it is easy to see that, when the figures are to be entered, there is a strong temptation to make as favorable a report as possible for the sake of a dividend, which dividend, whether it has really been earned or not, is to fix the market value of the shares for the next few months. This is one view of the case; but sometimes it happens, we believe, in fact, such transactions are so openly talked about that it is not to be supposed they are generally considered improper, that a dividend is paid by order of a board of directors, while there is no pretence that it has been earned, and where prudent regard for the future interests of the stockholders ought to have precluded its payment. As the amount of the semiannual dividend is, in the estimation of the ordinary purchaser of stock, the measure of the value of what he buys, a payment by the company of an unearned dividend, or of one improperly large, may lead him to invest under a false impression created by public misrepresentation. Railroad "financiering" did a great deal of mischief while railroads were building. It would be difficult to say what the phrase meant at that time, but in connection with railroads in operation it can only mean harm; for the absurdity of supposing extraordinary skill in money matters to be needed in the management of a railroad company has long since been apparent. The money has to be properly taken care of when earned, properly distributed, and clearly accounted for. Less book-keeping even would often be an improvement, with the introduction of accounts admitting statements simple and clear enough to satisfy the mind of any anxious proprietor. Nothing beyond the skill of a good accountant is really needed for this, and the rest is essentially mechanical.

Travellers from this country notice the difference between the European railway system and their own, and naturally compare the two systems as to economy, safety, speed, and comfort; but a contrast to what one is accustomed in travelling is very likely to be at first disagreeable, and this should be recollected when we are informed by letters or the newspapers that the American system is superior to the European system, particularly to that of England, — England usually affording the first opportunity for the observation. This sort

of criticism is too hastily made to be serviceable; indeed, it does much harm, for it tends to make people overlook defects that might otherwise be easily remedied. We mean to say that there are some things connected with railroad travelling here which might be altered for the better, for the purpose of making it safer and more comfortable. As to economy, no traveller can possibly find fault with the passenger fares; nor can the "shipper" of freight reasonably complain of the usual freighting charges; and the speed is great enough at present. In fact, it must be admitted that the American Railroad System, as it is called, is already admirably adapted to the wants and habits of a great majority of the persons who travel by means of it, and also that it is, as a whole, much better suited to this country than the European system would be. And as much may probably be said of the European system. For it is already nearly the perfection of locomotion, according to the ideas of comfort and convenience prevailing with the people who use it most. But, after all, there are some details common to both systems which it will be worth while to compare, in the hope of attracting attention to something or other that may be considered worthy of imitation.

The question of safety would probably be the last one likely to weigh upon the mind of the railway traveller of the present day on entering a train; yet many passengers habitually buy their life-insurance tickets with their car tickets, and the business of railroad life-assurance is said to flourish exceedingly.

We are unable to give the number of accidents occurring on the 37,000 miles of railroad of the United States in any one

year, or even on any large part of the whole; but if we take the statistics of accidents from the New York and Massachusetts returns for 1866, which are the only ones we happen to have at hand, and they are probably as favorable for the purpose of comparison as the statistics of accidents for a larger number of States would be, it will be seen that there were in those two States in that year, or, more precisely, in the twelve months embraced in that year's returns, 30 passengers killed, 112 passengers injured; 286 employees and others killed, 160 employees and others injured; a total of 316 passengers, employees, and others killed, and 272 passengers, employees, and others injured. A grand total of 588 persons either killed or injured during the twelve months on the railroads of New York and Massachusetts. They consist of but some 4,350 miles of the 37,000, and it is not to be imagined that they are managed with less regard to public safety than are those of the other States of the Union, though it is probable the number of passengers upon them is considerably larger in proportion to the mileage than is the case in most other States.

The number of passengers of all classes in New York and Massachusetts, for 1866, was 40,381,514; consequently one passenger was killed for every 1,346,050 passengers carried, and one passenger was either killed or injured for every 284,377 passengers carried.

The whole number of miles travelled by the trains, passenger and freight included, was 32,833,967; so that one life was lost of employees and others for every 114,804 miles travelled by trains, and one person exclusive of passengers was either killed or injured for every 73,619 miles travelled by the trains, -the miles travelled by the trains, of course, indicating the extent of accommodation afforded to the public. We will compare these figures with corresponding ones deduced from the railway returns of Great Britain and Ireland for 1862, as those are the only ones for the United Kingdom we have by us of so late a date. The comparative statistics of railway accidents in France, Germany, and Belgium would most likely be in favor of the Continental lines over those of Great Britain and Ireland; but the case, as it is, will be found sufficient for our purpose.

Indeed, the system of management in the French lines is extremely precise and rigid, probably the perfection of organization, and the consequence is that they are very safe, as well as very profitable; but persons used to the great personal freedom of movement possible when travelling by train here might perhaps prefer to continue to incur the risk so much moving about causes, rather than bear the restraint that in some measure secures greater safety.

The whole number of passengers killed on the railways of Great Britain and Ireland in 1862 was 35, and there were during the same period 536 passengers injured. There were also 181 servants of companies or of contractors, trespassers, and others killed, and 64 injured. The distance travelled by the trains was 108,061,797 miles; and the total number of passengers carried- assuming that each holder of a season tieket made three journeys a week throughout the year-was, say 197,400,000. That is to say, one passenger was killed for every 5,640,000 carried; one passenger either injured or killed for every 345,709 passengers carried; one servant of company or contractors and others killed for every 597,026 miles travelled by the trains, and one servant of company, &c. either killed or injured for every 441,068 miles travelled by the trains.

If, therefore, the year 1862 for Great Britain and Ireland, and the year 1866 for New York and Massachusetts, are not exceptional ones, the ratio of accidents in proportion to public accommodation under the two systems is very nearly as below, viz. :

21 passengers killed in New York and Massachusetts for 5 in Great Britain and Ireland;

6 passengers either injured or killed in New York and Massachusetts to 5 in Great Britain and Ireland;

21 persons other than passengers killed in New York and Massachusetts for 4 in Great Britain and Ireland;

6 persons other than passengers either injured or killed in New York and Massachusetts to 1 in Great Britain and Ireland.

The returns from which the above figures were drawn do not in all cases specify the number of passengers whose deaths were due to causes quite beyond their own control; some of

the passengers in the list having been killed in consequence of their own carelessness. To show how secure a railway passenger may be if he exercises proper caution, we copy a paragraph from a paper* lately read before the "Inventors' Institute" in England:

"In conclusion, I may observe that travellers are by no means aware of the almost daily improvements that are going on throughout the entire rolling stock and permanent way of railways. They would more fully appreciate these if they could run out of a first-class line at a high speed on to one of the old, original lines, such as the Liverpool and Manchester, with its rattle and jolting. Now, indeed, it is far more safe for one to be continually travelling, than to pass an active life under any other conditions. This statement is borne out from the official returns of the persons whose deaths were due to causes beyond their own control on the railways of the United Kingdom. The number has decreased from 38 in 1844 to 23 in 1859, and to only 15 in 1864, while the numbers that travelled during the last-named year amounted to the enormous figure of 229,350,000, or nearly eight times the whole population of the kingdom. Thus, the chance of death is 1 to 15,290,000, which may be taken practically as no chance at all. Let this be compared with the liability to fatal accidents from horse conveyances in London alone, with its population of nearly 3,000,000. By the returns from the Registrar-General's office, during the year 1865 there were 215 persons killed by horse conveyance, or 1 in every 14,000 of the population. The railway return already quoted gives 1 in every 2,000,000 of population, or 1 in every 15,290,000 of travellers. So that, taking the estimate by population, the railways are 150 times more safe than the streets of London."

So much for the relative safety of the two systems. Now as to their relative speed, for the rapidity with which a train passes over the rails influences its own safety directly and indirectly in many ways, though the result of a single accident. occurring to it might, under some circumstances, be as disastrous if it travelled slower. The management and system suited to high speed, therefore, must be in every respect more nearly perfect than they need be if the speed were not so great, in order to maintain an equal degree of security to passengers and the public.

* By Robert Richardson, C. E.