to prevent the introduction of abuses.

There are at least two valid objections that can be urged against the
adoption of such a system. Responsible companies could not be induced to
lease a line for a valid consideration unless their rates were
definitely fixed for a series of years. Such a course might, however,
in time result in great hardship to the commerce of the country, as the
great and unavoidable difference in the rates of the various railroad
lines of the country would give to the commercial interests of some
sections decided advantages over those of others. Besides this it would
be very difficult to compel the different companies to keep the lines
leased by them in repair. Controversies would constantly arise between
the officers charged with the supervision of the roads and the operating
companies, which could be ultimately determined only by the courts,
causing to the Government loss, or at least delay in the adjustments.

_5. National control._

Mr. A. B. Stickney, in his work, "The Railway Problem," holds that in
the interest of uniformity it is desirable to transfer the entire
control of railroads to the National Government. He assigns two reasons
for the proposed change; one being that Congress would consider the
subject of railroad control with more intelligence and greater
deliberation; the other, that "the problem of regulating railway tolls
and of managing railways is essentially and practically indivisible by
the State lines or otherwise," and that the authority of Congress to
deal with interstate traffic carries with it the right to regulate the
traffic which is now assumed to be controlled by the several States.

It must be admitted that it is a difficult matter to draw the line of
demarcation between National and State control, and that Congressional
regulation of railways would remedy many evils which now affect our
transportation system; yet there is reason to believe that the proposed
change would in the end be productive of more evil than good. It is an
essentially American maxim that the home government only should be
trusted with the administration of home affairs. The people of each
State know best their local needs, and it is safe to say that for a
generation or two no serious effort will be made to amend the Federal
Constitution in this respect or to secure from the courts an
interpretation of the interstate commerce clause greatly differing from
that which now obtains.

It is thu