s-questioned incessantly, and gave vague answers. Within
half-an-hour of the last moment he went into the coffee room and sat
himself down in a corner where his rival could not overlook him. There
and then he filled up his tender, and, as he rose from the table, left
behind him the paper on which he had blotted it. As he left the room his
rival caught up the blotting paper, and, with the exulting glee of a
consciously successful rival, read off the amount backwards. "Done this
time!" was his mental thought, as he filled up his own tender a dollar
lower, and hastened to deposit it. To his utter surprise, the next day
he found that he had lost the contract, and complainingly asked his rival
how it was, for he had tendered below him. "How did you know you were
below me?" "Because I found your blotting paper." "I thought so. I
left it on purpose for you, and wrote another tender in my bedroom. You
had better make your own calculations next time!"

--_Roads and Rails_, by W. B. Adams.

RAILWAY LEGISLATION.

A writer in the _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ remarks:--"The expenses,
direct and incidental, of obtaining an Act of Parliament have been in
many cases enormous, and generally are excessive. The adherence to
useless and expensive forms of Parliamentary Committees in what are
called the standing orders, or general regulations for the observance of
promoters of railway bills, on the one part, and the itching for
opposition of railway companies, to resist fancied inroads on vested
rights, supposed injurious competition, on the other part, have been
amongst the sources of excessive expenditure. Mr. Stephenson mentioned
an instance showing how Parliament has entailed expense upon railway
companies by the system complained of. The Trent Valley Railway was
under other titles originally proposed in 1836. It was, however, thrown
out by the standing orders committee, in consequence of a barn of the
value of 10 pounds, which was shown upon the general plan, not having
been exhibited upon an enlarged sheet. In 1840, the line again went
before Parliament. It was opposed by the Grand Junction Railway Company,
now part of the London and North-Western. No less than 450 allegations
were made against it before the standing orders subcommittee, which was
engaged twenty-two days in considering those objections. They ultimately
reported that four or five of the allegations were pro