civil power; for as it is now there is a want of responsibility. There is a jealousy among these so-called keepers of the peace; crimes are frequent and go unpunished; as evidence of its inefficiency notwithstanding the great number, and different kinds of policemen, perhaps more crimes go unpunished in the mining localities than in any other part of the State. What is everybody's business is nobody's, and a division of authority sometimes leads to a conflict of authority as well as to a neglect of its exercise or to an improper exercise.

Instead of three heads of authority, there should be but one-the local civil authority. Nothing makes power so honest and efficient as sole responsibility, and all civil police should be responsible directly to the mayor of the town or the sheriff of the county or his deputy. The entire mining country is interlaced by railroads and telegraphs, and the whole police in every town and county could readily be concentrated wherever needed upon short notice, as the different detachments of police in a large city can speedily be rallied at any point by a chief of police, and this could be done in the mining regions by the sheriff or his deputy just as effectually as by the heads of the corporations themselves. Again, if the civil authorities controlled the appointment and handling of the police, proper persons, and not bullies, would be selected, who would conscientiously enforce peace in the community far more than will the irresponsible policemen who best fulfill the wishes of their masters when executing the oppressions of pecuniarily interested corporations. In leaving this branch of the subject it may be remarked that the "railway" and "coal and iron" policemen of Pennsylvania are as odious to the better class of citizens in the mining regions as if they were known as Pinkerton detectives.

So much extortion was practiced upon the public by the unholy alliance among the joint carrying, mining and manufacturing industries, and so many wrongs were inflicted on the miners and upon employés by the corporations through the railway and coal and iron police, who habitually usurped in many cases the functions of the regular local civil police, that the people of Pennsylvania arose in their might, called a convention, and framed a new constitution in 1873, in order, mostly: (1) To curb the unbridled power of corporations; (2) to prevent corrup tion at elections; and (3) to prohibit special legislation, the two former abuses having been produced, possibly, mainly by the extortions, oppressions, and corruption of the joint business of carrying, mining, and manufacturing. Its most important new provisions, compared with the preceding constitution, were articles 16 and 17, which declared railroads and canals to be public highways, and required railroad and canal companies to transport without delay or discrimination of any kind. The consolidation of competing lines was forbidden. Common carriers were prohibited from engaging directly or indirectly in the mining or manufacturing of articles for transportation over their works, or from acquiring ownership in land, except for carrying purposes. The power of the legislature to alter, revoke, or annul charters of railway companies was also provided for, and that no corporation should have granted to it hereafter any further privileges except on condition that it accepted all the provisions of the new constitution. The general assembly of the State was required to enforce these provisions by appropriate legislation, which" appropriate legislation" has unhappily never been had, although it has been vigorously attempted by a few members at nearly every session of the legislature.

It is true that the State act of 15th May, 1874, was passed professedly to make provision for the enforcement of these articles; but on this

point the Hon. Charles R. Buckalew, now a distinguished member of this House, and formerly United States Senator, in his admirable commentary on the new constitution of Pennsylvania, page 270, says:

This object it does not accomplish. The promise of its title is falsified by the bedy of the act. In fact, upon an examination of that act in all its provisions and of the history of its enactment by the legislature, the conclusion must be that it was not framed in good faith to the constitution or intended to enforce any substantia reform in corporate management.

Because, as he says on page 267—

The act is imperfect, for it provides no penalty for its violation, nor other means for its enforcement.

A more pretentious act providing penalties was passed by the legisla ture June 4, 1883, but those "penalties" were to be inflicted for offenses defined in the act and not for offenses described in the seventeenth article of the constitution. And so many conditions, qualifications, and limitations were added to the crimes defined by the act that nobody ever has been convicted under it, or ever can be, or ever was intended to be convicted.

The political parties in the State, at times, have vied with each other in convention platform promises to enact this "appropriate legislation," but the friends of the constitution have never been able to command a majority in the legislature against the friends of the corporations. And the most that ever has been accomplished in that direction was the passage of a shirking joint resolution at the session of 1878 to encourage such legislation by Congress, in the following words:

Resolved, That our Senators in Congress be instructed and our Representatives be requested to vote for the passage of an act to provide for equity in the rates of freight upon certain property carried totally or partially by railroad in commerce with foreign nations or among the several States and Territories, and to prevent violent and injurious fluctuation and unjust discrimination in such commerce, and for other purposes. Approved March 5, 1878.-J. F. Hartranft.

But while the legislature of Pennsylvania will enact no statute to discipline corporations, it seems too ready to pass laws for them.

On the 2d and 6th of June, respectively, in 1887, two separate statutes were passed as follows:

AN ACT to protect the rights of share-holders in property and stocks of corporations. SEC. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That no real or personal property, the title to which is or may be held by or in the name of any corporation of this State, anthorized by its charter or general laws to hold the same, shall be escheated to the Commonwealth, nor shall, in any judicial proceeding, any inference of any relation of trust or agency arise by reason of the character or residence of the stockholders holding the whole or part of the capital stock of such corporation, nor because the beneicial ownership of said property, in whole or in part, is, or has been, in any person or persons, corporation or corporations, prohibited from holding the same.

SEC. 2. That said lands and property shall again become liable to escheat to this Commonwealth, as already provided by law, if said corporation shall continue to hold said lands and property exceeding five years after the passage of this act, and an information, in the nature of a quo warranto or other proper proceeding, shall be filed or brought by this Commonwealth to escheat the sime: Provided, That no railroad, canal, or other transportation company of this State, nor any corporation in whose nams the title to other lands or property is held, shall plead or have the benefit of this get unless it shall have previously filed with the secretary of the Commonwealth a certificate, in writing, signed by the president and secretary and attested by the corporate seal of the corporation, stating that at a regular meeting of said board of directors a resolution, in pursuance to the consent of the stockholders, was adopted, accepting all the provisions of the seventeenth article of the constitution of the State, and that all the powers and privileges and the limitations and restrictions therein shall be deemed and taken for all purposes to apply to such corporation. No such certificate shall be made by the officers aforesaid without the consent of the stock

holders of the corporation at a general or special meeting first had and obtained: Provided further, That no railroad, canal, or other transportation company shall plead or have the benefit of this act unless it shall have previously filed with the secretary of state its acceptance of all the provisions of article 17 of the constitution of this State, in manner and form as provided by law. (Approved, June 2, 1887.-James A. Beaver.)

AN ACT to enable the citizens of the United States and corporations chartered under the laws of this Commonwealth and authorized to hold real estate, to hold and convey title which had been held. by aliens and corporations not authorized by law to hold the same.

SEC. 1. Be it enacted, etc., That where any conveyances of real estate in this Com monwealth have been made by any alien, or any foreign corporation, or corporations of another State, or of this State, to any citizen of the United States, or to any corporation chartered under the laws of this Commonwealth and authorized to hold real estate, before any inquisition shall have been taken against the real estate so held to escheat the same, such citizens or corporations, grantee as aforesaid, shall hold and may convey such title and estate indefeasibly as to any right of escheat in this Commonwealth by reason of such real estate having been held by an alien or corporation not authorized to hold the same by the laws of this Commonwealth. (Approved, the 6th day of June, A. D. 1587.-James A. Beaver.)

Both these acts are worthy of the proverbial astuteness of the Philadelphia lawyer.

It will be seen that the act of June 2 does two things: (1) That the immense area of lands unlawfully held by the railroads engaged in carrying and mining coal shall never be escheated to the State, provided that the benefit of the act shall not apply to a corporation until it shall have filed with the secretary of the commonwealth a very ceremonious resolution, stating that the stockholders accept all the provisions of Article XVII of the constitution; (2) that said lands shall not be escheated, but shall only become "liable" to escheat if held longer than five years from the passage of the act, when proceedings shall be brought by the State to escheat the land, but such proceedings may be defeated by the corporation simply pleading that it has accepted by formal resolution all the provisions of the seventeenth article of the constitution.

If the analysis given is not the correct one, what is the correct one? Under the provisions of the above act, which seems to have been framed more to conceal than to express its real meaning, what consideration does the State get for waiving perpetually her right to escheat these lands? It is true the act purports to make them liable to escheat after five years if the corporations shall longer continue to hold them, but any judicial proceedings brought to escheat them can be instantly-defeated by the corporation pleading that it has accepted all the provisions of Article XVII of the constitution; a gratuitous condition, inasmuch as the court of last resort in the State has repeatedly decided that the offending railways now illegally holding baronies of land, and engaged in the joint business of mining and carrying coal, and otherwise violating the new constitution, are generally subject to the provisions of that instrument.

Another covert provision which seems to lurk in the above act is to enable foreign stockholders or purchasers of said lands now illegally in the possession of the offending railroads to acquire a valid title either for their own benefit or in trust for the railroads.

That the above interpretation is the correct one, and that the general assembly so understood it is obvious, from the fact that four days afterward it passed the second act quoted, which, both in the preamble and the body of the act, unequivocally and boldly permits any citizen of the United States or alien to purchase, hold, or convey title to these escheatable lands without any limitation as to time, and that such title shall be superior over any right of the State to escheat them.

What an outcome of the strong party pledges to execute the consti

tution against the railroads made by these legislators when seeking the people's votes! And what a commentary upon the observance of their oath of office to enforce the constitution against the corporations by appropriate legislation!"

As these remarkable acts were passed at the very next session of the legislature after it had been finally determined in the highest court of the State that the Reading Railroad was and is subject to all the provisions of the new constitution, the mind can not help but suspect that this largest holder of anthracite lands as well as the largest carrier of hard coal in the State had much to do with their enactment. A circumstance which gives color to this suspicion is the fact that an appeal was taken in the case of the Reading Railroad rs. Patent, explained more fully hereafter, to the Supreme Court of the United States, which was probably done to prevent, if possible, the institution of any proceedings for escheat, injunction, or other process until the passage of these acts was secured. That object accomplished, the Reading's counsel, of his own accord, moved to dismiss the appeal, which was done, with costs, 7th January, 1889. Although it is not apparent that these two acts go very far toward enforcing the new constitution by "appropriate legislation," they have probably laid the ground work for tremendous litigation and delay in executing the new constitution. Since the passage of these two acts in June, 1887, some of the railroads have been buying wide areas of other coal lands, and instead of quitting the joint business of mining and carrying anthracite have increased their mining operations by extracting bituminous coal as well as anthracite. This is notably true of the Lehigh Valley Railroad which seems ambitious to outstrip the Reading as an offender against the State Contitution.

Governor Beaver, the present executive of Pennsylvania, approved these acts, and yet in his last annual message, dated January 1, 1889, he devotes a long exhortation to the legislature to curb the railroads, which begins with the following eloquent language:

Your attention is respectfully and earnestly called, as that of former legislatures has been by previous executives, to the necessity for well-considered legislation to carry into effect the seventeenth article of the constitution. No argument is needed to enforce the majestic command of our fundamental law in this regard, which is that the general assembly shall enforce by appropriate legislation the provisions of this article." Constitutional requirement, plighted political faith, and the highest welfare of all concerned demand the discharge of this duty by the legislature.

It is a mistake to suppose that proper legislation upon this subject is, or ought to be, in any way inimical to the best interests of our carrying companies.

It is difficult to reconcile these statesmanlike words with his official acts in signing statutes to thwart the provisions of the constitution instead of enforcing them against corporations.

In the meantime, until very recently, the railroad corporations, in face of the plain inhibitions of the new constitution, have defiantly gone on acquiring title to hundreds of thousands of acres of coal, as well as of neighboring agricultural lands, and have not only been ag. gressively pursuing the joint business of carrying and mining coal, but they have been discriminating heavily in coal freights especially against the city of Philadelphia, robbing that city of about three millions of dollars or more annually, which it would not have had to pay if the two monster corporations, the Pennsylvania Railroad and the Reading Railroad, that control all direct transportation from the mines to the city, had not plundered the individual shipper at one end of their road, and the consumer at the other.

Philadelphia, instead of paying more for her anthracite than any other

sea-board city, should get it for less, because it is down grade from the mines to tide-water, and a locomotive can pull about as many loaded cars to market as it can haul back empty ones.

But this unjust discrimination is likewise practiced against Baltimore and other southern sea-board cities-Wilmington, Savannah, Charleston-as compared with the price charged to the northern sea-board cities shipped from Philadelphia by the Pennsylvania and Reading Companies.

The anthracite of Pennsylvania is the best coal in the world, being over 90 per cent. pure carbon. It burns without smoke, burns continually if fed like the sacred fire of Vesta; it is the cleanest coal, and is the most desirable of all coals for domestic and many other uses.

Elsewhere in the United States it is found in but little patches, and mined to but small extent in Rhode Island, Arkansas, Colorado, and New Mexico; but its quality in those localities is far inferior to that of Pennsylvania, and its quantity is as a mole-hill to a mountain, and it remains to be determined whether anthracite of sufficient quality and quantity exists in the United States ever to come into serious competition with that in Pennsylvania.

While many hundred thousands of square miles of territory in the United States are underlaid with good bituminous coal, enough to supply the world bountifully to the end of time, the known area of Pennsylvania anthracite is but 472 square miles, yet its quantity, too, is practically inexhaustible; many of its beds (or veins) cover large areas exceeding 80 feet in depth of mineable coal lying near the surface of the ground; and it is estimated by practical and scientific experts that it could supply for consumption even double its present annual output for hundreds of years.

Considering the vast improvements made in the art of mining coal during the last quarter of a century by drilling machines, powerful explosives, and the like, as well as in its transportation by reason of Bessemer steel rails, large locomotives, and otherwise, your committee, after laborious inquiry, has come to the conclusion that, allowing a fair royalty to the mine owner, good wages to the miner, reasonable freights to the carrier, and a handsome profit upon the capital actually invested in the enterprise of furnishing coal, the whole output of anthracite can be sold on an average for at least $1 less-your committee believes considerably more than $1 a ton less-than the consumer has had to pay for many years at tide-water, if there had only been free competition in mining and free competition in transportation, instead of a monopoly of both, confined practically to seven joint mining and transportation companies.

The process by which this result is reached is as follows: Many witnesses examined, some of them coal operators, admitted that the cost of mining did not exceed on the average $1.50 a ton throughout the anthracite region, even when good wages were paid to all concerned. A number of witnesses testified that the cost was considerably below that. But assuming the cost of mining to be $1.50 a ton, then allow 25 cents a ton royalty to the mine owner and $1.25 a ton for freight from the mines to Philadelphia, which likewise ought to be a reasonable rate for carrying it down grade to the city, 90 miles, it would seem that $3 should be the wholesale price in Philadelphia (and that was about the price the city paid before the Reading went into the business of mining coal in 1870), and the city ought not to have to pay more than that until ages hence, when deep mining shall become necessary. Too much royalty for mining and too much freight for transpor-