United States v. Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe Railway Company

• Decision Date: 13 March 1911
• Docket Number: No. 504,504
• Citation: 31 S.Ct. 362,220 U.S. 37,55 L.Ed. 361
• Parties: UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

220 U.S. 37

31 S.Ct. 362

55 L.Ed. 361

UNITED STATES, Petitioner,

v ATCHISON, TOPEKA, & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY.

No. 504.

Argued February 28, 1911.

Decided March 13, 1911.

Assistant to the Attorney General Kenyon, Attorney General Wickersham, and Special Assistant United States Attorney Doherty for petitioner.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 37-40 intentionally omitted] Messrs. Robert Dunlap and Gardiner Lathrop for respondent.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 40-42 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice Holmes delivered the opinion of the court:

This is an action to recover penalties for violation of the 'Act to Promote the Safety of Employees and Travelers upon Railroads by Limiting the Hours of Service of Employees Thereon.' March 4, 1907, chap. 2939, §§ 2, 3, 34 Stat. at L. 1415, 1416, U. S. Comp. Stat. Supp. 1909, pp. 1170, 1171. The government had a verdict in the district court, subject to exceptions, and the judgment was reversed by the circuit court of appeals. 100 C. C. A. 534, 177 Fed. 114.

The case is this: By § 2 it is made unlawful for common carriers subject to the act to permit any employee subject to the act to be on duty 'for a longer period than sixteen consecutive hours,' or, after that period, to do on duty again until he has had at least ten consecutive hours off duty, or eight hours after sixteen hours' work in the aggregate: Provided that no telegraph operator and the like shall be permitted to be 'on duty for a longer period than nine hours in any twenty-four hour period in all towers, offices, places, and stations continuously operated night and day, nor for a longer period than thirteen hours in all towers, offices, places, and stations operated only during the daytime,' with immaterial exceptions. By § 3 there is a penalty of not exceeding $500 for each violation of § 2. The defendant was subject to the act. It had a station and telegraph office at Corwith, in the outer limits of Chicago, which was shut from 12 to 3 by day and by night, but open the rest of the time. The government contends that this was a place 'continously operated night and day.' At this station the same telegraph operator was employed from halfpast 6 o'clock in the morning until 12, and again from 3 P. M. to half-past 6, or nine hours, in all, of actual work. The government contends that when nine hours have passed from the moment of beginning work, the statute allows no more labor within twenty-four hours from the same time, even though the nine hours have not all of them been spent in work. According to the government's argument, the operator's nine hours expired at half-past 3 in the afternoon. These questions on the construction of the statute are the only ones that we have to decide.

We are of opinion that the government's argument cannot be sustained, even if it be conceded that Corwith was a place continuously...