able to commerce, and uniformity in the terms of shipping contracts and in the rights of parties arising out of them in all jurisdictions is certainly to be desired.

A "uniform bill of lading" is something towards which some approach has been made by the carriers, and after protracted discussion a bill of lading was, a few years ago, proposed by a conference of railway representatives for adoption by all the railroad companies of the country.

Hostility of a violent character was, however, at once manifested against the proposed new instrument in nearly all of the leading commercial bodies of the country, and some of the principal lines therefore refused to adopt it.

Unity of action among the carriers was necessary in the case; since were all, save one even, of a number of competitive companies to adopt a bill of lading of a character unsatisfactory to the commercial interests, shippers could be relied on to divert all the business possible to the carrier declining the use of the obnoxious instrument. The combination in favor of the new bill of lading would have to be powerful indeed to encounter a risk of this sort.

The result has been that the proposed new bill of lading has not yet been generally adopted, though instruments containing very similar provisions are used on many lines. The form of the uniform bill as suggested is given in Appendix E.

The instructions to agents in regard to the use of this bill of lading forbade the issue of "duplicates" to take the place of lost or destroyed originals, except on written permission from the general freight department. And agents were directed, whenever a copy of a bill of lading should be desired, to stamp across the face of the copy a notice that such copy should not be deemed a bill of lading or contract of any kind, but only an acknowledgment that a bill of lading had been issued. This, of course, is intended as a safeguard against the negotiations of more than one instrument representing the same shipment.

Agents were further instructed, in case of shippers refusing to accept the bill of lading and demanding that freights be forwarded at carriers' risk, to make and sign upon the face of the instrument the following memorandum:

In consideration of higher rate charged, the property will be carried at carrier's liability, limited only as provided by common law and the laws of the United States and the several States, in so far as they apply.

The "higher rate" was to be fixed by putting any commodity, taken at carrier's risk, one class higher than if taken under the uniform bill of lading and charging accordingly.

This uniform bill of lading, it was also understood, was never to be used for live-stock shipments, for which a special live-stock contract, greatly limiting the carrier's liability, is generally in use.

Among the objections raised by the shipping interests to the proposed instrument was the insertion in it of the word "non-negotiable." These words it was supposed would greatly impair the usefulness of bills of lading as means for procuring discounts or getting money advanced on them as a security. This objection it was proposed to meet by providing that the bills should be stamped "non-negotiable except as provided in condition nine" of the proposed instrument. This would imply that when the property should be consigned to the "order of" the consignee, the bills should bear the quasi negotiable character heretofore explained.

The modification thus proposed was assented to by the carriers, as applicable to the bills of lading upon which the great staples of the country are moved to the markets.

But this concession by no means removed all objections of the shipping interests to the proposed uniform bill of lading. That feature of the instrument imposing one class higher rates on shipments unless made subject to its conditions aroused earnest antagonism. in support of the shippers' position on the question it is alleged that no reduction of previous rates is proposed as a consideration of the acceptance of the conditions of the bill, but only an increase of such rates in case of refusal to accept them. It is further pointed out that the method of increasing the rates by placing the commodity shipped in the next higher class, is entirely arbitrary, and fails utterly to proportion the increased charge to the increased risk on different commodities.

For example, the first class and second class rates from Chicago to New York, as they have been for some time and as they are proposed to be maintained in connection with the conditions of the new bill of lading, are, respectively, 75 cents per hundred and 65 cents per hundred. The one class higher rate proposed to be charged if the conditions of the bill are not accepted, are $1.121⁄2 in one case and 75 cents in the other. In other words, the rate is increased 50 per cent in one case and only 15 per cent in the other. A similar disparity in the proportionate increase of rates occurs, though not to the same extent, in each of the classes.

The injustice of this principle of increasing rates is further shown by the fact that the ratio of increase between different trade centers is not uniform even as applied to the same class. For example, the increase on fourth-class freight from Cincinnati to Buffalo would be 37 per cent, while the increase on the same class from Cincinnati to Detroit would be 44 per cent. When it is considered how the relative adjustment of rates between different trade centers has been arrived at after long years of experiment, and what trouble would probably arise from a disturbance of existing ratios between rates on the same commodities between different cities, the proposed method of increasing rates on traffic taken at carrier's risk can hardly be approved.

The conditions of the proposed bill have also been severely criticised.

It would perhaps be out of place to go into a discussion of these conditions and the objections urged against them. It may be said, however, that the conditions proposed are no more stringent than those which are now inserted in most of the bill of lading in general use.

It has been stated above that the uniform bill of lading has not been generally adopted by the carriers; but this statement perhaps needs some qualifications. In the last issue of the so-called "Official Classification," which has been expressly adopted by a number of leading railway companies and filed by them with the Commission, under the head of "rules and special instructions," is the following:

22. Property will be carried at reduced class rates, as hereinafter shown, if subject to the conditions of the uniform bill of lading. If shipper elects not to accept the said reduced class rates and conditions he should so notify the agent of the receiving carrier at the time his property is offered for shipment; and if he does not give this notice it will be understood that he does desire his property carried subject to bill of lading conditions in order to secure the reduced class rate thereon. Property carried not subject to bill of lading conditions will be at the carrier's liability, limited only as provided by common law and by the laws of the United States and of the several States, in so far as they apply. Property thus carried is one class higher than property carried subject to the conditions of the uniform bill of lading and the cost of marine insurance is added over any part of the route that may be by water.

The uniform bill of lading is then set forth at length.

The acceptance by the shipper of this bill of lading is thus sought to be made by the carriers one of the "rules and regulations" referred to in the sixth section of the act to regulate commerce "which change, affect or determine any part or the aggregate" of their traffic charges. It would seem that the carriers thus adopting the uniform bill of lading, and publishing it in connection with their rules affecting their charges, have by their own action given the Commission authority to decide upon the propriety and justice of its provisions.

It is not intended to express any opinion on the general subject in this connection, but it seems proper to call attention to certain features of the classification which connection with the rule of increasing rates proposed in case a shipper refuse to accept the bill of lading may be misleading.

The classification considered without any reference to that rule shows that many articles are differently classed according as they are taken at owner's risk or carrier's risk, and frequently there is more than a single class difference between the same article according as it is taken at owner's risk or carrier's risk, For instance, "ale, beer, or porter in bottles in open carriers, C. R." is first class, and the same O. R. is third class. Suppose a shipper of such goods should decline to accept the bill of lading, he would have a right to suppose that the classification would be raised one higher, that is from third to second, but would probably be informed that in his case the raise would be to first class. Such a condition of uncertainty should not be allowed to exist in railway tariffs.

The commercial organizations of the country seem generally to be of opinion that the ordinary form of bills of lading to be used in connection with uniform rates and uniform classification, should be merely a receipt for property coupled with an agreement to carry to and deliver at a specified destination, subject only to such restrictions and conditions as are established by common or statute law.

Any further conditions and restrictions, they think, should be the subject of special contract between shipper and carrier, and can not justly or properly be inserted in any uniform instrument in writing. The form suggested by the National Transportation Association is as follows:

་

Received for transportation from in apparent good order, except as noted, the property described below (value unknown), marked and consigned as indicated below, and subject to carriers' liabilities as laid down by the common law in force in the various States, Territories, provinces, or foreign countries through which the property must pass.

The rate of freight upon the property herein described shall not exceed between

and

Marks and consignments.

per

Upon the foregoing presentation the subject is submitted to the consideration of Congress.

CONVENTION OF RAILROAD COMMISSIONERS.

The plan of holding an annual conference of the railroad commissioners of the States, undertaken as an experiment a few years ago, has met with such success that it bids fair to become a permanent feature of the American system of railway regulation.

The idea of these conferences had its origin in the desirability of securing a greater degree of harmony in the administration of various laws relating to railway construction, traffic, regulations, statistical reports, and other matters of public interest connected with railroad transportation.

The advantages of such uniformity had been recognized by some of the State railroad commissioners long before the passage of the act to S. Mis, 31-ɔ̃

regulate commerce, but the enactment of that law greatly emphasized its necessity.

Three annual sessions have been held in the city of Washington in which members of this commission participated. The Association of American Railway Accounting Officers has also been represented at each of these conferences, and the interest felt in them has attracted leading representatives of the railway press to all of the sessions.

The papers read at these conferences and the discussions suggested by them, as well as the interchange of views upon numerous practical questions connected with railway operation and management, have been of value and importance.

The sessions of the last conference were had at the hearing room of the Commission on the 3d and 4th days of March last. The chairman of the Commission was called to preside over the conference, and made an address on the subject of "The Railroad Problem." Reports or papers were also read and discussions had on the following subjects: Railway Legislation; Reasonable Rates; Uniformity of Railway Accounts; Safety Appliances; Discriminations from use of Private Cars, and other matters of general interest. The proceedings of the convention were published in book form and distributed.

The address of the chairman and synopsis of proceedings are given in Appendix F.

Perhaps the most important step taken by the last conference was the appointment of a committee to secure Congressional action in regard to safety appliances. A paper on this subject and also on the subject of heating of passenger cars prepared by the secretary will be found in Appendix G.

SPECIAL RATES TO AND FROM THE WORLD'S COLUMBIAN EXPOSITION.

At the instance of the World's Columbian Exposition, the roads carrying between Chicago and the eastern seaboard agreed to return free all articles carried at full rates to Chicago for exhibition, thus making a reduction equivalent to one-half the schedule charges on all exhibits carried to and from the Exposition. The directory of the Exposition deemed it expedient and necessary to ask additional transportation privileges in favor of foreign exhibitors, the nature of which appears from a letter to the carriers, written in behalf of the Exposition, which is in part as follows:

At a recent conference between the committee and Mr. James Dredge, commissioner from England, Herr Wermouth, commissioner from Germany, and Mr. Meyer, commissioner from Denmark, these gentlemen stated that by far the largest portion of the exhibits from their respective countries would not be returned; that much of the material would be of a character which it would not pay to return to the other side, and that further they thought that manufacturers would be much more easily induced to send exhibits if a half rate were made in both directions, the prospect being that but very little of the material exhibited would be returned at all.