Northern Pac. Ry. Co. v. United States

• Decision Date: 21 March 1914
• Docket Number: 4015.
• Citation: 213 F. 162
• Parties: NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit

213 F. 162

NORTHERN PAC. RY. CO. v. UNITED STATES.

No. 4015.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

March 21, 1914

Syllabus by the Court.

An omission by a common carrier from a periodical report of the instances of excessive service of its employes, made and filed in good faith within the time prescribed therefor by the Interstate Commerce Commission pursuant to the amendment of section 20 of the act to regulate commerce (Act June 18 1910, c. 309, Sec. 14, 36 Stat. 555 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307)), of one or more instances that should have been included therein, or any mistake of law or fact made therein in good faith, does not subject the common carrier to liability for the penalties or forfeitures denounced by that amendment for a failure to file the periodical report.

The apparent and natural meaning of the terms of a statute is to be preferred to any curious recondite signification deduced by study, ingenuity, and strong desire.

A reasonable sensible interpretation of a statute should be preferred to an irrational signification that renders the law unjust and oppressive.

A penal statute which creates a new offense and prescribes the punishment for it must clearly state the persons and acts denounced.

Emerson Hadley, of St. Paul, Minn. (C. W. Bunn, of St. Paul, Minn and Watson & Young, of Fargo, N.D., on the brief), for plaintiff in error.

Philip J. Doherty, Sp. Asst. U.S. Atty., of Washington, D.C. (Edward Engerud, U.S. Atty., of Fargo, N.D., on the brief), for the United States.

Before SANBORN and HOOK, Circuit Judges, and POPE, District Judge.

SANBORN Circuit Judge.

The railway company complains of a judgment of $500 against it for five fines of $100 each for failing for five successive days to correct an unintentional omission of an instance of excessive service of some of its employes from its monthly report of such instances, filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission on November 29, 1912.

The Interstate Commerce Commission, under the authority of the amendment of section 20 of the act to regulate commerce of February 4, 1887, chapter 104, 24 Stat. 386 (U.S. Comp. St. 1901, p. 3169), made June 18, 1910, and found in chapter 309 Sec. 14, 36 Stat. 555 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1305), made an order on June 28, 1911, that all carriers subject to the provisions of 'An act to promote the safety of employes and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours of service of employes thereon,' commonly called the hours of service act (Act March 4, 1907, c. 2939, 34 Stat. 1415 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1321)), should 'report within thirty days after the end of each month, under oath, all instances where employes subject to said act have been on duty for a longer period than that provided in such act,' and it was for an innocent omission of one instance from one of these monthly reports that this action was brought. Section 20 of the act of 1887, as amended by Act June 29, 1906 (34 Stat.pp. 584, 593, c. 3591, Sec. 7 (U.S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 1307)), authorized the Commission to require annual reports from each common carrier subject to the act of its capital stock issued, the amounts paid therefor, the manner of payment therefor, its dividends paid, its surplus fund, the number of its stockholders, its funded and floating debt, the cost and value of its property, franchises, and equipment, the number of its employes and the salaries paid each class, its accidents, earnings, receipts, expenditures, etc., and it empowered the Commission to require from each carrier specific answers to all questions upon which the Commission might need information. A subsequent portion of this section 20, as amended in 1910 (36 Stat. 556), read in this way:

'If any carrier, person, or corporation subject to the provisions of this act shall fail to make and file said annual reports within the time above specified, or within the time extended by the Commission for making and filing the same, or shall fail to make specific answer to any question authorized by the provisions of this section within thirty days from the time it is lawfully required so to do, such parties shall forfeit to the United States the sum of one hundred dollars for each and every day it shall continue to be in default with respect thereto. The Commission shall also have authority by general or special orders to require said carriers, or any of them, to file monthly reports of earnings and expenses, and to file periodical or special, or both periodical and special, reports concerning any matters about which the Commission is authorized or required by this or any other law to inquire or to keep itself informed or which it is required to enforce; and such periodical or special reports shall be under oath whenever the Commission so requires; and if any such carrier shall fail to make and file any such periodical or special report, within the time fixed by the Commission, it shall be subject to the forfeitures last above provided.'

This quotation contains the only definition of the offense and the only specification of the penalties involved in this case. The offense is the failure 'to make and file any such periodical * * * report within the time fixed by the Commission' and the penalties are 'the forfeitures last above provided.' The forfeitures last above provided are prescribed for the failure of the carrier to file in due time its annual report, which is required to set forth the vast mass of statistics and information required by the first portion of section 20, and for its failure to answer any specific question propounded by the Commission within the time lawfully prescribed for the answer, and these penalties are the forfeiture of $100 for each and every day the carrier shall continue to be in default with respect to the annual report or the answers to the questions. The judgment in this case was rendered upon the pleadings, and the material facts which they disclose are these: On October 29, 1911, an engineer, fireman, conductor, and two brakemen were called at 7:30 p.m. to take out a wrecker train at 8:10 p.m. from Jamestown, N.D., but it subsequently proved unnecessary to send that train out, and at 8:10 p.m. these employes were released from duty, and notified that they would not be required for service until 10:35 p.m., and they rendered no service prior to that time, except that the engineer and fireman kept the fire in their engine alive. At 10:35 p.m. they took a train east from Jamestown to Mapleton, where they arrived and where their service ceased at 1:15 p.m., October 30, 1911, so that, unless they were in service between 8:10 p.m. and 10:35 p.m., October 29, 1911, their service was only 14 hours and 40 minutes, and they rendered no excess service. If, on the other hand, they were on duty between 8:10 p.m. and 10:35 p.m., October 29th, their continuous service exceeded the 16 hours limited by the hours of service act. It was conceded at the hearing in this court that the United States had sued the company, had recovered, and the company had paid, the penalty prescribed by the hours of service act for this excessive service, and that by that judgment the fact that these employes were on duty from 8:10 p.m., October 29th, until 1:15 p.m., October 30th, was rendered res adjudicata. On November 29, 1911, the railway company filed its monthly report, under oath, of the instances of hours of service of its employes on duty during October for longer periods than those named in the hours of service act, in the form and in accordance with the regulations of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and many such instances were disclosed therein. By reason of the abandonment of the wrecker train, the company did not consider or understand, when it made and filed this report, that it was required to report the instance which has been described, and its report was intended in good faith to be true and complete, and to embrace any and all instances where its employes were kept in service longer during the month of October than the times limited by the act of Congress, but it did not specify the instance of excessive service on which this suit is founded. The result is that the case, in brief, is this:

The Commission lawfully required the company to file within 30 days after the end of each month a monthly or periodical report of all instances of hours of service of its employes on duty for a longer period than that named in the hours of service act. The twentieth section of the act to regulate commerce, as amended, fixed a penalty of $100 for each...