This was the course adopted by the Free State in relation to the Congo Railway in its initial estimates. It also reserved the right of repurchase. This latter reservation, however, it abandoned for a time by Act dated November 12, 1901, which also stipulated in what manner its optional power of reducing rates was to be exercised. That power it exercised by imposing a comprehensive system of reduction, and without at the time committing itself to any declaration as to the specific classes of goods on which the rates were to be reduced. It does not concern strangers whether it be exercised in one act or in two, and whether the concessionaire acts by special agreement with the State or under general powers. The main consideration is whether the procedure followed for the attainment of the reductions aimed at is in accordance with the Berlin Act. In the present case, the procedure certainly was in accordance with that Act. From a legal point of view, nothing can be said against the State’s reducing railway rates, inasmuch as it was invested with the right of primarily drawing up those rates. By the same Act of November 12, 1901, the State enjoys certain special conditions of transport for carrying out works of public utility. That right is quite legitimate for the Government, and does not entitle private citizens to demand its application for their own purposes. The State could have enjoyed these advantages if it had itself built and worked the line. The mere fact of a concession by no means robs the State of all its rights in this respect. These advantages are justified, for the State has made real sacrifices in ceding a part of its territory and in abandoning the repurchase clauses. The advantages accruing to the State do not in any way interfere with the equal treatment of individuals stipulated for in Article 16, which says: “As regards the rate of these tolls, foreigners and subjects of the respective territories shall be treated on a footing of perfect equality.” No distinction is made on account of nationalities; the only difference made rests on a service of public utility, regardless of nationality. Neither subjects nor foreigners can say that their civil or commercial liberties are endangered. There are certain authoritative interpretations of the Berlin Act which confirm our view of this question. The German Government, for example, considers no breach of equality the exemption of all dues granted to a German railway concessionaire. Below are two clauses of the Imperial German decree, dated December 1, 1891, and relating to the railway in German East Africa (Usambara line).