No. 1425. IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF THE GEORGIA SOUTHERN & FLORIDA RAILWAY COMPANY FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH "AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES AND TRAVELERS UPON RAILROADS BY LIMITING THE HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES THEREON." Filed January 15, 1908. Denied February 14, 1908. A petition for relief under this act does not show "good cause" when it merely alleges that the law ought not to be enforced at certain stations or classes of stations because the number of train orders handled is small and there is no need of increasing the force of employees. John I. Hall for petitioner. KNAPP, Chairman: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. The Georgia Southern & Florida Railway Company on January 15, 1908, filed its petition for relief under the above-entitled act, which was approved March 4, 1907, and by its terms was to take effect and be in force one year after its passage. The facts stated in this petition which need to be considered may be briefly summarized as follows: After describing the location of the company's railroad and naming its terminals, it shows that a large number of train dispatchers and telegraph operators are employed in conducting its transportation business; and that at many stations along its lines the work of its telegraphers is quite light and easily performed, particularly at certain named places, ten in number, at which an extension of time is requested. The manner in which operations are carried on at these places is set forth in a letter of the general superintendent of the company which is made a part of the petition, and this is supplemented by an exhibit which purports to show, among other things, the number of train orders and other messages handled by the operators at each of these stations, respectively, and the number of hours they were on duty during the thirty days from November 10, 1907, to December 10, 1907. It is evident from this exhibit that the average time occupied by employees at these stations during a twenty-four hour period in handling train orders and receiving and transmitting messages was comparatively small, and that other duties occupied the greater part of their working hours. For the purpose of disposing of this case it will therefore be assumed, whatever the actual fact may be in that regard, that two men could perform all the company's work at each of these stations, including such telegraph service as occasion may require, without severe or unusual exertion of body or mind. Upon the facts above stated the petition asks that operators and agents at three of the stations named, after handling train orders for nine hours or less, may then be required to work a sufficient number of hours as clerks or otherwise to complete twelve hours in each twenty-four hours; that agents at six of the stations, who handle very few train orders or messages, may be required to remain on duty from thirteen to fifteen hours, and that an agent and operator may be allowed to divide the time during which the office at one station is kept open. The general showing as to each of these nine stations, and the only grounds upon which as to them an extension of time is asked, are the ease with which the entire service of the company is performed by two men and the needless expense of increasing the number. There is no allegation that the company is unable to obtain an additional force of telegraphers or that it has made any effort to do so. Neither is there any allegation that the company has insufficient funds to pay such an increased force as may be necessary to keep these offices open as at present and comply with the limitation upon hours of labor imposed by the act in question. The entire petition in substance and effect is merely an argument to show that additional telegraphers are not needed at any of these stations, and therefore the company ought not to be required to employ them. It is entirely clear to us that this petition, under the most liberal interpretation of the facts set forth, presents no case for administrative relief, temporary or otherwise, from the requirements of this law. The only authority conferred upon the Commission in this regard is expressed as follows: The Interstate Commerce Commission may, after full hearing in a particular case and for good cause shown, extend the period within which a common carrier shall comply with the provisions of this proviso as to such case. The "proviso" referred to is that part of section 2 which provides that no employee who handles train orders by telegraph or telephone shall be required or permitted to be on duty more than nine hours 13 I. C. C. Rep. out of the twenty-four at offices continually operated night and day, nor more than thirteen hours out of the twenty-four at offices operated "only during the daytime," except in case of emergency, when four additional hours may be required on not more than three days in any week. No other provision of the law can be extended or modified by the Commission. The power to extend under this proviso is extremely limited. This is evident from the plain import of the language above quoted, from the context to which it relates, and from the obvious purpose of the entire enactment. It seems clear to us that nothing more was intended than to authorize the Commission, in exceptional instances where conditions are unusual or unforseen, to enlarge somewhat the time allowed to prepare for compliance. Conditions which are common to many railroads or to a substantial percentage of telegraph stations are conditions which must have been taken into account when this law was passed and do not constitute "a particular case " for relief by the Commission. We are therefore of the opinion that the petition filed by this company does not show "good cause" for extending the period within which it shall comply with the law at the several stations named, because it sets forth no exceptional or peculiar conditons which render observance impracticable at any of these stations, but merely alleges a state of facts tending to show that the law ought not to be there enforced on account of the small number of train orders and messages handled and the absence of any need or occasion for u creasing the force of telegraphers. This is purely a question of legislative policy which was and must have been determined by the Congress adversely to the company, and the Commission has no right or authority to postpone the taking effect of the act merely because compliance with its provisions will involve inconvenience and financial hardship. The situation at the stations in question, as described in the petition, is in no sense unusual or of recent origin. It is a situation with which the Congress was well acquainted when the law was enacted, for it is practically identical with the situation which. has existed for years at hundreds if not thousands of stations and has long been a matter of common knowledge. The act was passed with full understanding that conditions substantially the same as those here considered were so numerous in nearly every part of the country as to be characteristic of railway practice, and the law was evidently intended to apply at stations of this familiar type. To extend the time allowed for compliance at this class of stations, for extension in this case logically involves like extensions in all similar cases, would practically nullify the law during the period of postponement as to a large percentage of the employees for whose benefit the law was enacted, and presumably deprive the traveling public meanwhile of the added safeguard against accident which the law was designed to secure. The purpose of this enactment and the intention to give it application to all employees who handle train orders, whether much or little of their time is occupied with that duty, are so clear and explicit as not to be open to question. It is equally clear that the authority of the Commission to grant an extension was intentionally limited to instances of special and unforeseen conditions. It was plainly not contemplated that conditions which are common and well known, which are so frequently found on every railway as to comprise a recognized class, should be regarded as a sufficient basis for administrative relief. Moreover, in this case there is nothing to show nor is it even suggested that the petitioning company will be any better able to comply with the law three months or six months hence than it is at present. This would be equally true for the most part, we apprehend, on other roads and as to stations generally of the class in question. The real desire in such cases is not for temporary postponement, but for permanent exemption. Manifestly this was never intended and therefore the Commission should hold that good cause for extension is not shown because any financial burden which the law imposes may be somewhat harder to bear now than it will be at a later date. The year allowed for preparation by the act itself must have been deemed sufficient in all cases save those of an exceptional character, and any extension which might be properly granted in such cases should have some reasonable relation to the time fixed by the Congress for general compliance. We perceive nothing in the facts here presented to justify or authorize a relieving order and the petition must therefore be denied. 13 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1029. JOHN H LEWIS, P. W. WATKINS, A. G. BARTON AND J. A. FESPERMAN Submitted November 18, 1907. Decided February 10, 1908. Complainants prayed for an order requiring defendant to reestablish facilities at Fanshawe, Okla., for the receipt and delivery of interstate traffic, and at the hearing defendant agreed to put in certain facilities satisfactory to complainants and it appearing that the public interest would be subserved by the fulfillment of this understanding, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice. John H. Lewis for complainants. M. L. Bell for defendant. REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. CLEMENTS, Commissioner: The complaint in this case was that the defendant had established a station at Fanshawe, Okla. (formerly Indian Territory), about 1892, which it maintained until 1901, when it was discontinued. Complainants claimed that this resulted in unjust discrimination. The prayer is that an order be made requiring the defendant to establish facilities at Fanshawe for the receipt and delivery of interstate traffic. The answer of the defendant denies the jurisdiction of the Commission in the premises and also makes general denial of the allegations. At the hearing much testimony was introduced tending to support the allegations of the complaint, and at the close the representatives of the defendant company stated that it was willing to build a spur track at Fanshawe for the receipt and delivery of freight, and to have stopped every day, upon signal by flag, one passenger train in each direction, and if in the future the business should justify it, a regular station, with an agent in charge, would be established. Mr. Lewis, one of the complainants, and other citizens of Fanshawe present at the hearing stated that this arrangement would be entirely satisfactory to them at this time, and they were confident |