way shares, points unmistakably to a very widely diffused ownership. Nothing more strikingly illustrates the extent to which this diffused ownership may exist in some of our leading railways, than the statement of Mr. J. J. Hill to the effect that "when the Chicago, Burlington and Quincy railroad was taken into the Northern Securities company some 2,000 of its 18,000 stockholders owned five shares each and 300 owned one share each." The eastern trunk lines were reported to have had their stock distributed among 99,829 shareholders in the year 1896, and the Pennsylvania railroad company reported that 40 per cent of its shareholders were

women.

One other exception to the above averages is pertinent to our discussion. This exception, while it does not in the least disprove the wide diffusion of stock ownership indicated by the foregoing process of subdivision, does tend to show, on the contrary, a large degree of concentration of stock in individual hands. To rely merely upon the preceding averages, it is clear, would prove inadequate for our purpose, since they do not afford an exact criterion of the actual proportion of stock held by the different shareholders. The concentration of stock ownership in individual hands, as indicated by these averages, becomes all the greater when we remember, first, that the above tables fail to show the unequal distribution of the stock among the shareholders of any given road, which as a practical matter of fact we know exists; and, secondly, that they do not take cognizance of the very common fact that the well-to-do stockholders of one railway, though owning far more than their proportionate share, also own stock in a large number of other roads.

How unequal the stock of a particular railway may be distributed among its holders is well illustrated in the case of the Fitchburg and New England railways. With the exception of the Boston and Albany, the Boston and Maine, and the Old Colony railways, the Fitchburg Railroad company represents the lowest average stockholding of the roads of Table I. Yet 624 of its stockholders, or those residing in New Hampshire, own but $871,300 of its $24,360,000 of capital stock; while 1,119 of its 5,935 stockholders own but

$1,440,000. More significant, still, is the instance of the inequality of ownership afforded in the case of the New England Railroad company. This company has its capital stock of $25,000,000 distributed among fifty one stockholders, and with but three exceptions shows the largest average stockholding of the nineteen roads included in Table III. Yet twenty six, or one half of these fifty one stockholders, according to the Massachusetts Railway commission report, owned but $55,000 of the capital stock, or slightly more than one five hundredth part of the total.

Having thus illustrated the unequal distribution of stock among the owners of a given road, which illustrations may be almost indefinitely multiplied, we may now inquire briefly into the second point, the ownership of stock by one individual in several or many roads. To what extent this multiple ownership exists is partly indicated by a comparison of the directorates of a number of the leading railways with a view of noticing to what degree the names of the directors of various railways duplicate one another. For the purpose of this comparison, the names of the directors of the ninety principal railways, as published in the state railroad commission reports, and including the directors of all the roads of Tables I., II., and III., were examined. After a tabular analysis had been made, and all duplications had been eliminated, it was found that the total number of positions in the directorates of these ninety roads was 819 and the total number of individual directors 393. Of this number of individual directors one was the director of fifteen roads, aggregating over $929,000,000 of capital stock, and one the director of fourteen roads aggregating over $565,000,000 of capital stock. Three were the directors of twelve roads each; one of these directors representing capital stock to the extent of $765,000,000, and the remaining two over $367,000,000 each. One was the director of eleven roads with a total capital stock of $572,000,000; one the director of ten roads whose total stock exceeded $656,000,000, and two the directors of eight roads whose stock reached $541,000,000 in the one case, and $565,000,000 in the other. Of the remaining directors, two were the directors of seven roads; eight the directors of six

roads; fourteen the directors of five roads; thirteen the directors of four roads, and forty the directors of three roads., In brief, eighty six of these 393 directors represented at least three of these important roads, and 192, or nearly one half of the total number, were found to be directors of two of these roads or more.

In the foregoing paragraphs we have reviewed, as briefly as the subject permits, some of the considerations which assist us in arriving at some conclusion with reference to our subject.

In the first place, from the evidence submitted it appears that railway stock is to a large extent owned by a great number of holders scattered throughout the country, and representing every stratum of society. The Illinois Central, we saw, stood out conspicuously in its attempt to extend the ownership of stock to its employees. The Boston & Albany and the Boston & Maine railroads likewise had their stock distributed almost entirely among small holders. The Pennsylvania railroad has its capital stock of $204,000,000 distributed among 29,000 individual stockholders. With reference to the New England railways, we noted that the stock was distributed among at least 70,000 stockholders, while the total number of shareholders for the roads of Table I exceeded 144,000. Recognizing that some of these stockholders may in turn represent corporations, it becomes apparent that in our great railways the number of small individual owners is exceedingly large. Indeed, it has been estimated by Mr. George B. Blanchard that the total number of holders of railway stock reaches 950,000, and that the total number of stockholders and bondholders combined approximates 1,250,000.

Secondly, in accordance with the statistics presented, we have determined the average stockholding per holder of railways aggregating approximately $3,822,214,000, or nearly 65 per cent of the total railway stock of the country. A survey of the smaller roads showed that outside of the New England states, the average stockholding was comparatively large, ranging from a maximum of $156,638 in Minnesota to a minimum of $15,849 in Virginia. With reference to the more important railways, we noted that the average stockholding

for twenty two of these roads, representing $1,541,887, 088, was $10,646. In twenty two of these roads, aggregating $1,180,871,739 of stock, the average stockholding was $69,463; while in nineteen roads, representing a capital stock of $829,041,555, the average stockholding reached $2,322,245. By regrouping these railways, however, it was found that over one half of the total capital stock of the first group is held in average holdings of $18,561; that over 55 per cent of the total capital stock of the second group is held in average holdings of $108,000, and that five eighths of the total capital stock of the third group is held in average holdings of $10,872,340.

These averages, it is true, are modified by the fact that as several small corporations become financially interested in, or are merged into, a larger railway corporation, the number of small stockholders may thereby be increased many times. But the effect of this increase upon a wider diffusion of railway stock, it is believed, is more than neutralized by the countertendency of well-to-do individual stockholders to acquire stock in a large number of such undertakings. Indeed, we have seen that this multiple ownership on the part of individual stockholders exists to an exceedingly large extent. If we recall, furthermore, that the average stockholding for the roads of the first three tables has shown a decided tendency to increase, and that great extremes of stock ownership exist even in most of the roads of Table I, we may conclude with a rough degree of accuracy that the above tables present, on the whole, a far too conservative view of the actual concentration of railway stock in individual hands at the present time. Concentration certainly does manifest itself strongly in the roads included in Tables II and III. And, if the composition of the comparatively low averages of the railways of Table I could be ascertained, to see whether they are made up of great extremes or not, it seems probable, from the above considerations, that by far the majority of the large number of stockholders cited for these roads represent small investors, and that the majority of the stock, in many, if not in a majority of these roads, is held by a comparatively few large holders.

SOME ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF ELECTRIC

POWER DISTRIBUTION.

BY LOUIS BELL.

[Louis Bell, consulting electric engineer; born Chester, N. H., Dec. 5, 1864; resides in Boston, where, besides his active life in his profession, he has found time to write many scientific and technical essays chiefly for the Engineering Magazine, in which the article here published first appeared; also author of the following books among others: The Electric Railway, Electrical Power Distribution, Power Distribution for Electrical Railways, The Art of Illumination.] Copyright 1905 by John R. Dunlap

Much of the complicated mechanism which we are pleased to call modern civilization has for its purpose the survival of the unfittest and the subversion of natural laws. Instead of punishing criminals, we spin fine drawn theories about them and turn them loose to be a drag upon the progress of decent society. Instead of segregating degenerates in suitable asylums, we form societies for the study of their literary and artistic works and pay two dollars per seat to hear their mephitic plays. We treat economic laws with even more contempt than civil and criminal laws. Professors of the dismal science sometimes speak of the law of supply and demand as bearing at least some remote relation to actual human needs, while in reality the basis of many movements in modern industry is the substitution of an artificial law for the natural one. If vested interests have acquired an unprofitable railroad, which upon a sound commercial basis should not have been built prior to 1950, there is at once a cry for such a "readjustment" of rates as shall charge up the loss to communities along lines which were more wisely planned. Fortunately, civilization brings good along with evil; and while there is terrible loss of energy in the artificial methods employed, there is still progress, not so much perhaps as the world flatters itself in thinking, but progress nevertheless.

In the last resort, the substance of civilization is human development-all the rest is accident. The Greeks had no knowledge of steamships railroads, electric lights, telegraphs,