it obligatory upon all roads engaged in interstate traffic to equip all cars and locomotives with approved automatic eouplers, and to provide other safeguards such as powerbrakes and grab-irons. In this particular, American labor legislation was far in advance of European. The results of the coupler legislation are particularly striking. In 1890, when only about 10 per cent. of railway cars were equipped with automatic couplers, accidents in the coupling of cars amounted to nearly half of all casualties to trainmen. By 1912, when over 99 per cent. of all cars were so equipped, the proportion of accidents from this cause was reduced to about 8 per cent. The majority of early regulations imposed by the federal government, however, left open to the various roads the determination of the kind and character of devices to be installed. The absence of a central standardizing authority resulted in lack of uniformity, and at times in the adoption of inadequate or ineffective devices. In 1910, therefore, an act of Congress, in addition to making new safety provisions, gave to the Interstate Commerce Commission power, after proper hearings, to "designate the number, dimensions, location, and manner of application of the appliances," and thereafter such determinations were to remain as "the standards of equipment," and any failure to comply with any requirement of the commission was subject to a "like penalty as failure to comply with any requirement of this act." At the same session of Congress the commission was given authority to investigate all collisions, derailments, or other accidents, to subpoena witnesses, administer oaths, take testimony, and to require the production of all papers, books, and other evidence. It might also make a public report "together with such recommendations as it deems proper." One year later $25,000 was appropriated for the use of the commission in making tests and establishing standards and a maximum

3

2

For the further protection of employees and as a stimulus to the roads to use every possible safety precaution Congress also provided that no employee injured on a train not equipped according to law could be held to have assumed the risk of his employment even though he knew of the violations. This provision has been upheld in the North Carolina case of Greenlee v. Southern R. Co., 122 N. C. 977, 30 S. E. 115 (1898).

2 United States, Laws 1909-1910, C. 160.

3

United States, Laws 1910-1911, C. 285.

of $300,000 a year was appropriated to provide for proper boiler inspection by a staff of fifty-three inspectors working in close cooperation with the commission.1

Beginning with the great increase in railroad mileage in the early 'eighties, state legislation grew in volume and developed along two lines, one mainly for the protection of employees, and the other mainly for the protection of the traveling public. Measures for the protection of travelers are of two kinds. The first relates to mechanical devices for the prevention of accidents, such as automatic bell-ringers, brakes, headlights, and signal lights, while the second relates to the qualifications and training of employees.

Among the measures which have been passed primarily for the protection of employees are found such requirements as those for the installation of grab-irons, ladders, runningboards, storm windows in engines, the maintenance of a proper temperature in mail or baggage cars, the regulation of the height of bridges or other overhead structures, the maintenance of a proper clearance around tracks, particularly in railroad yards, the blocking of frogs and switches, and, for employees engaged in repairing tracks, the erection of sheds to protect them from inclement weather. For the safety and convenience of employees who are frequently required to travel long distances on freight or stock trains caboose-cars must be provided, which must be constructed according to certain rules of size, strength, safety, and comfort.

Employees on street or interurban railways are also frequently protected through state legislation or municipal ordinance. Such measures relate usually to inclosed vestibules during the winter months, seats for motormen, and proper automatic brakes, and occasionally to equipment for the sanding of rails, to the examination of employees, and to minimum age limits.

During the past few years the sharpest debate in matters. of protective railway legislation has centered about the fullcrew laws, which are held to protect both the public and the employee. More than twenty states have enacted such legislation. These acts usually apply to both passenger and

1 United States, Laws 1910-1911, C. 103.

freight service on roads of given lengths, and fix the number of employees-principally of brakemen-in proportion to the number and kind of cars in the train. Full-crew laws have been initiated by the railway men's organizations and have been vigorously opposed by the railroad owners, who have contended that as a rule larger crews are unnecessary because of the reduction in the amount of work required of employees since the introduction of safety devices, the formation of special switching crews, and the generally improved methods of handling trains. They point also to the increase in operating cost, resulting in reduced dividends and in curtailment of improvements.1

On the other hand, the trainmen point to the large number of both fatal and non-fatal accidents, and to the. increasing strain upon railway employees due to the increase in the weight of trains, in the number of tons per train, and in the number of cars per man. They hold that by these increases the railroads have made their greatest economies. The trainmen maintain, therefore, that full-crew legislation serves practically the same purpose as legislation restricting hours of labor, in that both reduce the physical strain and thereby the frequency of accidents.

3

This is the view which was adopted by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania when in 1913? it upheld the full-crew law of that state, enacted in 1911, as having a real and substantial relation to the safety of passengers and employees on railroad trains. The company presented evidence as to the cost of the legislation, but the court held that "Uncompensated obedience to a regulation enacted for the public welfare or safety under the police power of the state is not taking property without due compensation, and any injury sustained in obeying such a regulation is but damnum absque injuria.” 4

For a full discussion of this subject see bulletin Consecutive No. 73 of the Bureau of Railway Economics, Washington, D. C., "Arguments for and against Train-Crew Legislation,” 1915.

2 Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Ewing et al., 241 Pa. 581, 88 Atl. 775 (1913). A similar decision was rendered in Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific R. Co. v. Arkansas, 219 U. S. 453, 31 Sup. Čt. 275 (1911), upholding the 1907 law in that state.

Pennsylvania, Laws 1911, No. 811.

In 1914 the railroad companies succeeded in repealing by a referendum vote the Missouri full-crew law of 1913; and in Pennsylvania they in

During the year 1915 bills were introduced in a number of states fixing the maximum length of trains. This legislation is also strongly opposed by the railroads, on the ground that they have expended large sums of money for improved roadbeds, yard and switching facilities, and for increased tractive power of locomotives, which will be rendered useless if they are not allowed to increase the length and weight of their trains.

State provisions for railroad safety have frequently been contested on the ground that regulations which apply to interstate commerce are a subject for federal legislation. But the courts have uniformly held that where Congress has not legislated upon these questions the states were entirely within their rights. An interstate road, therefore, might either make such changes as were necessary, as it passed from one commonwealth to another, to meet the minimum requirements of each commonwealth, or it might comply everywhere with the maximum provision found in any of the states through which it passed.

Although much of the protective railroad legislation is mainly for the benefit of employees, it is recognized that the safety of the public depends in large part upon the safety of those who are entrusted with the care and management of trains. It is this aspect of the matter which has largely influenced the courts in rendering favorable decisions on safety and health laws for railway employees.

The enforcement of protective regulations in relation to railway labor has in the majority of states been entrusted to railway or public utility commissions created primarily to supervise or regulate rates. In this class of legislation, as in the regulation of conditions in factories, workshops, and mines, it has been found impracticable to embody in the statute law specifications which will be effective under diverse and constantly changing conditions. For this reason many legislatures have delegated to the railroad commissions power to work out details of provisions and to prescribe safety rules and regulations. This method of protection has repeatedly been sustained by the courts. In 1913 the law creating the

duced the 1915 legislature to pass a repealing act, which, however, was vetoed by the governor.

Railroad Commission of Indiana, and an early ruling of the commission fixing a 1,500 candle-power standard for locomotive headlights, were both attacked as unconstitutional. The case was carried to the supreme court of the state, which upheld the delegation of legislative powers, declaring that "The decisions of this court and the courts of other states in this regard are clearly against the appellant's contention." 1

4. DEVELOPMENT OF STANDARDS

A careful study of the early laws to preserve industrial safety and health, as passed by Congress and by the legislatures of the fifty American states and territories, discloses at once four fundamental defects.

(1) Defects of Early Legislation

First among these defects is the incompleteness of these laws. It was long the custom of legislatures to specify in the law the industries and danger-points which were to be safeguarded, and to confine the inspectors' authority to the places and conditions mentioned. Under this method many industrial danger-points were overlooked. Perhaps "buzz-saw" or "dangerous dusts" or "foundry" was omitted from the law, inadvertently or otherwise. Although often fraught with harm to the worker, these unmentioned points were outside the authority of the inspection officials, and the workers received no protection until the law could be changed. Frequently, too, a qualifying phrase greatly limited the operation of a good law. For example, the law in one state required poisonous fumes generated "in the course of the manufacturing process" to be removed. While varnishing the interior of

1 Vandalia R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 182 Ind. 382, 101 N. E. 85 (1913). This case was, however, appealed to the United States Supreme Court where, in November, 1915, it was still pending. For a clear opinion on the delegation of legislative authority see Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Wisconsin, 136 Wis. 146, 116 N. W. 905 (1908).