United States v. Great Northern Ry. Co.

[1] An action consisting of 12 counts was brought against the defendant in error to recover penalties for *928 violations of the Safety Appliance Act approved March 2, 1893, c. 196, 27 Stat. 531 , as amended by Act April 1, 1896, c. 87, 29 Stat. 85 , and by Act March 2, 1903, c. 976, 32 Stat. 943 . It was alleged that the defendant ran on its line of railroad, in interstate commerce, certain freight trains drawn by its own locomotive engines, but that at times the speed of the trains was controlled by brakemen who were required to use common hand brakes for that purpose. There was a stipulation between the parties that each engine was equipped with a power driving wheel brake and appliances for operating a train brake system; that in each train not less than 85 per cent, of the .cars therein were equipped with power or train brakes, which were used and operated by the engineer of the locomotive drawing such train to control its speed, in connection with the hand brakes. The court below sustained a demurrer to the complaint, on the ground that none of the counts therein' set forth facts sufficient to constitute an offense against the United States.

The statute of March 2, 1893,…

(dissenting). The sufficiency of the complaint in this case is to be considered in the light of this stipulation entered into by and between the respective parties:

The facts of the case therefore are that, as to each of the causes of action counted on, each engine was not only equipped with a power driving wheel brake and appliances for operating a train brake system, and that in each train not less than 85 per cent, of the cars therein were equipped with power brakes, but that 'they were used and operated by the engineer of the locomotive drawing such train to control its speed in connection with the hand brakes. The sole question, therefore, in the case, is not whether Congress should have under such circumstances prohibited the use of any hand brakes, but whether it has done so by its legislation upon the subject. That it has not done so seems to me very plain from a mere reading of its enactments. That of March 2, 1893, referred to in the opinion of the court, declares:

It will be observed that¿n that.act Congress did not specify the number of cars that should be equipped with the train brake system, only requiring that the number should be “sufficient” for the purpose…