The sun., 1910-05-09
TEE BLOCK SIGNAL TOWER
CASE.

lt unlawful for q railroad company 10 re-.
ouirs one who IL IN charge Of block signsl
tower 10 remain on duty more than eIrb,
hours a day is a valid and constitutional
exercise Of the police power Of the Sia,s
and that while the statute purpoFts n am,
only 10 corporations. the court NAV. o,
the question of unjust discrimination q,
this respect, take judicial notice Of the fac,
that all the railroads In tho State 10 which
ths act could appiy are operated by corpor,.
tions and not individuals.
The court also ruled that even u The si,,.
ute failed a. . valid exercise Of ne polIr.
power Of the State. n h within the rishf o.,
the IaFialatura to regulate the corpor.,.
powers Of railroads In this respect. Il he'd
further that while tho act applies 10 en-.
ployeea engaged In Interstate a. well AZ
local traEhc. 70 does not conflict with he
Federal statute on tho same subject, which
provides that employees Of the class In
QUESTION shall not b required or per,
mllted 10 Be Or remain on duty for a LONGER
period than nine hours In any twenty four
hour period The court ruled that he
rirhl Of the State further TO restrict iha
hours Of labor a. may be deemed Necessary In
special cases h not limited.
The question went 10 the Court Of Appasls
IN proceedings brought by the AttoTnsv.
General 10 fns the Erie Railroad Company
giOO for a violation Of tho act In question
which refers nOt only 10 telephone or tsIs.
graph operators. bat to peFsons manipulating
| lnter,4@klnG switches. and which does not
apply % any part Of a railroad where no,
more than eight passenger trains IN each
| twenty-fOuT hours pass each way. or where
less than tWcAty freight trains pass Eener-
! ally each way In tWsnty-fOur hours. The
lower court fined the railroad cotnnanv
! but the Appellate Division Of the Second
Department reversed the judgment Ths
Court Of Appeals rsverses tho Appellate
Division.
Judge HiscOck. writing the opinion, sald
that tWo reasons were alleged Why the
statute was not valid and applicable The
first was that the Legislature had no power
10 place such a Limitation on the right N
the railroad company 20 keep such an on.
ployee on duty, and the second was that
such an employee being In part engage
Ia forwarding interstate commerce. Con.
Rrpss had the superior power 10 requisite
his hours Of labor and had done 20 By legis.
lation which barred or superseded the state
legislation In question.
1t is clear that the first defence cannot
be maintained writes Judge Hscock
The dOctrine that the Legislature under
proper circumstances and within reasonable
limits may exercise its police power In the
regulation Of hours and conditions of labor
IL now thoroughly and broadly established
One familiar form Of this class of legisla.
tiOn IL that which has for its object the pro.
motion NJ the health and welfare n he
employee. a. especially In the case of Women
and children. Another class seeks 70 pro-
tect the safety Of the public by limiting the
hours Of labor Of those who are In control
Of dangerous agencies. lest by excessive
periods Of duty they become fatiRued ard
Indifferent and cause accidents leading 70
injuries and destruction Of life. This statute
comes within the latter class
Judge Hisoock commented on the effort
by the counsel for the railroad company
to show by reviewing the duties DISCHARGED
by the operator In question and the tine
consumed In the actual performance ~ them
that no conditions existed which warranted
the Legislature in fixing the time limit Il
did. Counsel insisted that the period u
service prescribed for this particular class
Of employees is entirely out of proportion
70 that Of various other employees engaged
In the operation of railroad.
His argument Is not without force"
SAYS Judge HiscOck. and very uell might
n
for permitting employment for q larger
numb-r Of hours do not think. however.
that We can say that the facts 20 oonclu-
sively show a lack ef relation between the
legislation and the iustlhable ends sought
10 BE- gained that We can condemn the stat
uts a. unconstitutional. For while each
of the duties performed by the operator
seems simple enough. still, A. a whole 'hsv
form quite a complicated series Of aefs
the transmission Of signals, the giving ~
orders and the movement OF trains, and
while the actual time In performinR thssa
acts IL not large still. the employee FOR ths
proper discharEe OF his duties is compelled
TO b. on the alert during the entire time n
bis employment. and n not tnfrsquertlv
happens that lack Of active OccupatiOn
work ltself Thus t b. not at all inyor-
ceivable that such an employee subjected
TO too long hours Of duty and confinement,
might become physically fatirhsd and uer-
tally inert and make mistakes Which would
lead 70 tho destruction NJ life
The court states that the considerations
presented by the second defence are equally
Important and possibly Of more dinCut
solution. bringing up the question thai ths
statute sought TO be enforced trezpasses
on Held of legislation which has already
its power 20 govern Interstate commerce
and those engaged therein. and thai here
fore i Was forbidden and nugat0ry
Judge hiacock points out that tho general
defining Federal and State leE islation NAV
b. divided readily into three fields The
nrst y that IN which the power of the Sia'e
y exclusive. the second that In which tho
state may act In the absence Of legislation
~ Congress which u controlling and 81
Clusive: the third u that In which the au-
ihOrtty Of Congress Is exclusive and The
state cannot Interfere AZ all
On this point Judge H@cock writes:
u Il Important 70 keep IN mind for the purposes
of this discussion that within the hrst field In
state comnercc and Il Is cuncedsd ard thersfors
the reasons vii not BE- discussed that me SAis
actng within ne second neid might pass thf pres
SSs ber. ., ,has snss az q y. , ~
local commerce uniesa the Federal statute barred
such leEidauon. Did " do E0f n u apparent
,SSrr oos,.,o1 ~. ~, 49,, -. u 49, niSs
hourr prgyeutsA STATE from saying under control
| nag conditions that BE- may not VIVA IN eSress
analogous character On other subjects which reat
| " suggest hemseives s,frh a. the proper Weght
o. raila ne nafe speed Of trains the necessary
nav =, nrs SI ess ~ N ~ - Sn .sy
preerribinr the minimum rule of precauuon. and
ne protection BY The Slato II the safety ~ W
s, se9. a. lsa., ,snasfsd m9rs eomPlies,n.a ana
| sueh . separation of local and interstate tranc
as has not yet occurred. and which night be mads
e5gemslg oureea.ome 2 Ne railroads. y ~
lhe foTuleg va not also b moving ihe latter and
lhereiore, u ne State q prevented BY Iedsr.
statute NE thst before us from Adopting addl.
deems - be necetnaFy. h Wtn be unable n 10
.ufe no safety Of locnl paaaenreEg and uanr
40 y 70 obvious hat iaetor of safeSy liss mat
must assume, 20 average oundiduns prevailng
thrgughoai ne ouunty, often WI he quite M