that it would be to the residents of Fanshawe generally, and asked that the complaint be disposed of in accordance with this understanding. The Commission has, since the hearing, been advised by complainants that defendant has complied with this understanding in respect to passenger facilities. Since it appears that the public interest, so far as involved, will be subserved by the fulfillment of this understanding, and in the expectation that this will be accomplished by the defendant at an early date, the Commission will not review the facts or express an opinion upon the merits of the controversy, but an order will be entered dismissing the case without prejudice. 13 I. C. C. Rep. No. 1425. IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITIONS OF VARIOUS CARRIERS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLY WITH "AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE SAFETY OF EMPLOYEES AND TRAVELERS UPON RAILROADS BY LIMITING THE HOURS OF SERVICE OF EMPLOYEES THEREON." Submitted February 29, 1908. Decided March 2, 1908. Petitioners ask extension of time within which to comply with an act of Congress approved March 4, 1907, at a number of stations covered by the thirteen-hour provision and at nearly two-thirds, in the aggregate, of the stations on their lines to which the nine-hour provision relates, alleging in some cases inability to secure the additional force required and in most cases the financial hardship which compliance imposes. Held: 1. That to grant such wholesale orders of extension would in effect interfere with the policy of this legislation in its fundamental aspects and amount to an amendment of the law by the official body charged with its administration. 2. That to grant extension on account of financial distress would open the door to endless uncertainties, because there is no possible means of determining the degree of financial distress which would justify extension, and if mere financial hardship is good cause for postponing compliance, it was equally good cause for refusal to pass the law. KNAPP, Chairman: REPORT OF THE COMMISSION. The brief time in which these petitions must be passed upon forbids any detailed statement of the facts relating to the several applications or any extended explanation of our views upon the questions presented. In all 43 petitions are embraced in this report. Of these the earliest was filed on the 7th of February and only 10 were filed prior to February 18. Several were received while the hearings were in progress, during the last three days of the month, which was all the time that could be allowed for that purpose, and three were filed on March 2, after the hearings had been closed. The petitions in many cases are quite lengthy and their general allegations of fact are supported by elaborate tables and statistical data. The petitioning companies operate approximately one-half the entire mileage of the country and extensions are asked, according to our estimate, at a still larger percentage of the total number of stations to which the ninehour provision relates. The act in question was approved March 4, 1907, and by its terms was to take effect one year after its passage. The first section defines the carriers subject to its provisions and these are practically all railroad companies in the United States. The employees whose hours of labor are limited by the enactment are those actually engaged in or connected with the movement of trains. The second section provides, in its first paragraph, a general limitation of sixteen hours, which applies to all employees of the classes mentioned. The second paragraph reads as follows: Provided, That no operator, train dispatcher, or other employee who by the use of the telegraph or telephone dispatches, reports, transmits, receives, or delivers orders pertaining to or affecting train movements shall be required or permitted to be or remain 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, except in case of emergency, when the employees named in this proviso may be permitted to be and remain on duty for four additional hours in a twenty-fourhour period on not exceeding three days in any week: Provided further, 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 meaning of this latter proviso is the primary question to be determined. The petitioners contend that the authority thereby conferred upon the Commission is broad enough to permit all the extensions for which they have applied and that the reasons they have presented show "good cause" for such extensions. The significance of this claim will appear from certain general facts which may here be considered. As we understand the matter the stations at which train orders are handled may be divided into three classes, (a) stations at which train dispatchers are located, including "relay offices," so-called, (b) other stations kept open continuously and called "night and day offices," (c) stations closed during all or a greater part of the night and known as "day offices," or closed during all or a greater part of the day and known as "night offices." This classification is not altogether accurate, but will answer the purposes of discussion. The first class of stations does not appear to be much affected by this enact ment because, as a matter of fact, the operators at such stations were not ordinarily employed more than eight hours a day when the law was passed and had not been for a considerable time. The law therefore imposed no substantial obligation upon carriers at stations of this description which custom and usage had not already established. The third class of stations, known as day offices, are not understood to be materially affected, as the thirteen-hour limitation is assumed to apply at such stations and there seems to be infrequent occasion to require continuous service of greater duration. While a few petitioners ask extensions at this class of stations, aggregating a comparatively small number, we infer from the facts brought to our attention that observance of the thirteen-hour provision requires little change from usual methods and therefore involves no considerable expense. It is the second class of stations, the typical night and day office, which is directly and to a most important degree affected by the act in question. At stations of this class two men, and only two, are usually employed. At a very large percentage of such stations, perhaps at most of them, these two men perform all the duties of the roads they represent, including such telegraph service as occasion may require. Each of them must of course be on duty an average of twelve hours out of the twenty-four. The manner in which the business is conducted at such stations has been repeatedly described, and tables of actual experience on many of the petitioning lines show that at few stations are any large number of train orders handled in the course of twenty-four hours, while in numerous instances the time occupied in telegraphic work is a small fraction of the hours. of service. It is obvious that the nine-hour law will compel the addition of a third employee at every station of the class in question which is hereafter kept open night and day throughout the twentyfour hours. As respects its practical application, therefore, this is the fundamental feature of the law, for it is the only provision which makes the enactment a matter of serious consequence. The conditions above outlined were thoroughly understood when this measure was pending before the Congress. The sixteen-hour provision, which applies to all employees connected with the movement of trains, required no substantial change from previous practices, because in most cases and under normal conditions of operation the hours of continuous duty were generally not in excess of sixteen. True, there were frequent instances of longer and clearly excessive hours of service, but the great bulk of the work of men handling trains in the usual course of business was performed within the limits of this provision. The evident object of the limitation was to reach the exceptional cases, where longer hours presumably resulted in such fatigue as to impair bodily and mental vigor, and thereby introduce a preventable cause of accident. Both the thirteen-hour and the nine-hour provisions practically relate only to telegraphers, as the use of the telephone to transmit train orders is not extensive. And what has just been said respecting the sixteen-hour limitation is believed to be substantially true as to the thirteen-hour provision, which applies to those who handle train orders at stations operated only during the daytime. This provision likewise involves no substantial change from usual and normal conditions of service, for it permits hours of duty equal to those ordinarily required, but was designed to reach and prevent the exceptional instances, comparatively few in number, when longer and unreasonable hours without rest might be expected to result in a loss of alertness and efficiency, and so introduce a preventable cause of accident. But the nine-hour provision is of an altogether different character. It applies to a very large and well-recognized class of men who handle train orders at night and day stations, and who were known to be customarily required to work at least twelve hours out of the twenty-four. It was intended not merely to cover exceptional cases, where unusual hours might beget disability and danger, but to bring the general and ordinary hours of service at this class of stations from a twelve-hour to about an eight-hour basis. In short, it is a provision to reduce by approximately one-third the hours of duty heretofore required in an extensive field of railway service. evident purpose was to promote safety by enforcing practically an eight-hour day for all employees who handle train orders in offices continuously open, whether more or less of their time was occupied with that particular duty. Bearing this in mind we perceive the real object sought to be accomplished by these petitions. They virtually seek an extension of this law, not in occasional instances of peculiar hardship, constituting an exception to the general class covered by the nine-hour provision, but at the greater part of all the stations comprised in that class. In other words, we are asked in effect to interfere with the policy of this legislation in its fundamental aspects and to impeach its propriety by granting wholesale orders of extension. That this is not an exaggerated statement is shown by the fact that the relief sought covers a large percentage of the entire number of these night and day stations. As each case was presented the direct question was asked as to the total number of stations of the class in question and the number of those at which an extension was desired. In only one or two instances was the percentage less than 25, while most of the roads asked extensions as to all or nearly all of the stations at which observance of the nine-hour law would require an addi |