Imágenes de páginas

As to burden of proof of cause of injury EROP Texas to review a judgment which

would not be inferred that two or three bar- | law results from a provision of a state statrels of Venetian red broke open, scattering ute which makes it a misdemeanor for any the powder over merchandise, from not be person to act as a conductor on a railway ing properly stowed, where the evidence train in that state without having previousshowed the most stormy passage in fifteen ly served for two years as a freight conyears. The Fern Holme, 24 Fed. 502. ductor or brakeman. Presumption of negligence on

part of the carrier was held not to apply to a mule (Mr. Justice Holmes dissents.) having pneumonia. St. Louis & S. F. R. Co. v. Brosius, 47 Tex. Civ. App. 647, 105

(May 11, 1914.) S. W.

RROR to the of to live stock during transportation, see Terre Haute & I. R. Co. v. Sherwood, 17 affirmed a judgment of the County Court L.R.A. 339, note. See “Burden of proof as to negligence having acted as conductor of a freight train

of Gregg County convicting defendant of where property is destroyed while in the possession of a carrier holding as warehouse without previous experience as freight conman.” Yazoo & M. Valley R. Co. v. Hughes, ductor or brakeman. Reversed. 22 L.R.A.(N.S.) 975, note.

The facts are stated in the opinion. As to presumption and burden of proof Messrs. Gardiner Lathrop and Robert where loss or damage occurred, in actions Dunlap, for plaintiff in error: against connecting carriers, see Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Riverside Mills, 31 trarily restricting the right to engage in a

The statute, by unreasonably and arbiL.R.A.(N.S.) 102, note.

Liability of carrier of property for loss lawful occupation to a favored class, thereoccurring on connecting line, but due to its by depriving others who are as well fitted own negligence, see Whitnack v. Chicago, to engage therein, and depriving them of B. & Q. R. Co. 19 L.R.A.(N.S.) 1011, note. all opportunity to show their fitness, is

Cases in regard to negligence of ware- arbitrary and capricious upon its face, and housemen, and cases depending on connect is obviously not passed for the sole puring carriers’ liability, are not intended to pose of protecting the community against be included in this note.

I. T.

the results of inexperience, but tends to give a monopoly in a particular employ

ment to a favored class. It deprives those UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT. who do not fall within the favored class of

their liberty or freedom without due process W. W. SMITH, Piff. in Err.,

of law, and denies to them the equal pro

tection of the laws of the state. STATE OF TEXAS.

Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. S. 356, 369,

30 L. ed. 220, 226, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1064; (233 U. S. 630, 58 L. ed. 1129, 34 Sup. Ct. Barbier v. Connolly, 113 U. S. 31, 28 L. Rep. 681.)

ed. 924, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 357; Connolly v.

Union Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 559, 46 Constitutional law due process

L. ed. 689, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Lochner stricting right to contract - railway conductors prior occupation.

v. New York, 198 U. S. 53, 49 L. ed. 940, 25 An unconstitutional infringement of the Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 Ann. Cas. 1133; Adair liberty of contract without due process of v. United States, 208 U. S. 173, 174, 52 Note. - Constitutionality of statute re- , spective of arbitrary distinction between

quiring preliminary apprenticeship or branches and grades of service, is the proper experience for railroad employees. standard by which one's fitness to occupy a

certain position is to be judged. The court As to constitutionality and effect of re- below, which is reversed in the principal strictions on right to practise trade of case, arrived at the opposite conclusion 1 barber, see note to Moler v. Whisman, 40 Tex. Crim. Rep. 146 S. W. 900), admitL.R.A.(N.S.) 629.

ting that the statute prevented persons from As to constitutionality of restriction on acting as conductors who were as fully business of undertaking, see note to Wyeth qualified as those who were permitted to v. Thomas, 23 L.R.A.(N.S.) 147; and later engage in that occupation, but holding that cases People v. Ringe, 27 L.R.A. (N.S.) 528, it was within the power of the legislature to and State v. Rice, 36 L.R.A.(N.S.) 344. make such a statute.

The decision in Smith v. Texas, in the And a position similar to that of SMITH light of the principles upon which it rests, v. Texas is taken in Cleveland, C. C. & St. would seem to preclude legislation which L. R. Co. v. State, 26 Ohio C. C. 348, afarbitrarily restrains a person in one branch I firmed in 70 Ohio St. 506, 72 N. E. 1165, or grade of railroad service from engaging, which holds unconstitutional a statute makin another branch or grade for which his ing it unlawful "to employ any person in actual experience fully qualifies him. The the capacity of a conductor of a passenger case holds that personal qualification, irre-| train or trains unless he has had at least


- re

[ocr errors]

L. ed. 443, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 277, 13 Ann. 30; Smith v. Board of Examiners of Feeble Cas. 764; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. Minded, 85 N. J. L. 46, 88 Atl. 963; ChiS. 114, 124, 125, 32 L. ed. 623, 626, 627, 9cago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 231; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 226, 41 L. ed. 979, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 581; U. S. 508, 509, 47 L. ed. 566, 567, 23 Sup. Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 137, 38 L. ed. Ct. Rep. 390; Cooley, Const. Lim. 7th ed. | 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499; Allgeyer v. pp. 889, 890; State ex rel. Powell v. State Louisiana, 166 U. S. 578, 589, 41 L. ed. 832, Medical Examining Board, 32 Minn. 324. 835, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 427; Butchers' Union 50 Am. Rep. 575, 20 N. W. 238; Gage v. S. H. & L. S. L. Co. v. Crescent City L. S. New Hampshire Electric Medical Soc. 63 L. & S. H. Co. 111 U. S. 761, 28 L. ed. 588, N. H. 92, 56 Am. Rep. 492; Bank of Colum- 4 Sup. Ct. Rep. 652. bia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 244, 4 L. ed. 561; Messrs. B. F. Looney, Attorney General The Federalist, No. 51; Marbury v. Madi- of Texas, and Luther Nickels, for defendson, 1 Cranch, 176, 2 L. ed. 73; Wyeth v. ant in error: Board of Health (Wyeth v. Thomas) 200 The state may rightfully prevent un. Mass. 474, 23 L.R.A. (N.S.) 147, 128 Am. qualified men from occupying the position St. Rep. 439, N. E. 925; Josma v. West- of conductor of a passenger train; and in ern Steel Car & Foundry Co. 249 Ill. 508, doing so the state does not: 94 N. E. 945; Bonnett v. Vallier, 136 Wis. I. Unconstitutionally interfere with the 193, 17 L.R.A. (N.S.) 486, 128 Am. St. Rep. right of contract, because: 1061, 116 N. W. 885; Chenoweth v. State The state has the power to prevent inBd. of Medical Examiners, Colo. —, 51 dividuals from making certain kinds of L.R.A. (N.S.) 958, 141 Pac. 132; Ruhstrat contracts in regard to which the Federal v. People, 185 Ill. 133, 49 L.R.A. 181, 76 Constitution offers no protection, Am. St. Rep. 30, 57 N. E. 41, 12 Am. Crim. Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 31 L Rep. 453; People v. Schenck, 257 Il. 384, ed. 508, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. 44 L.R.A. (N.S.) 46, 100 N. E. 994, Ann. Rep. 564; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Cas. 1914A, 1129; Opinion Justices, 211 | Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, 32 L. ed. 352, 2 Mass. 618, 98 N. E. 337; Morgan v. State, Inters. Com. Rep. 238, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 179 Ind. 300, 101 N. E. 7; State v. Wag. 28; Olsen v. Smith, 195 U. S. 332, 49 ener, 69 Minn. 206, 38 L.R.A. 677, 65 Am. L. ed. 224, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 52; Otis v. St. Rep. 565, 72 N. W. 67; Com. v. Snyder, Parker, 187 U. S. 606, 47 L. ed. 323, 23 182 Pa. 630, 38 Atl. 356; State ex rel. Zill. Sup. Ct. Rep. 168; Holden v. Hardy, 169 mer v. Kreutzberg, 114 Wis. 530, 58 L.R.A. | U. S. 366, 42 L. ed. 780, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 748, 91 Am. St. Rep. 934, 90 N. W. 1098; 383; Northern Securities Co. v. United People v. Hawkins, 157 N. Y. 7, 42 L.R.A. States, 193 U. S. 197, 48 L. ed. 679, 24 490, 68 Am. St. Rep. 736, 51 N. E. 257; Sup. Ct. Rep. 436; St. Louis, I. M. & S. R. Vicksburg v. Mullane, Miss. 50 L.R.A. Co. v. Paul, 173 U. S. 404, 43 L. ed. 746, (N.S.) 421, 63 So. 412; Gulf, C. & F. 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 419; Knoxville Iron Co. R. Co. v. Ellis, 165 U. S. 150, 41 L. ed. 666, v. Harbison, 183 U. S. 13, 46 L. ed. 55, 22 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 255; Connolly v. Union Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Allgeyer, v. Louisiana, 165 Sewer Pipe Co. 184 U. S. 549, 46 L. ed. 685, U. S. 578, 41 L. ed. 832, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 431; Cotting v. Kansas | 427. City Stock Yards Co. (Cotting v. Godard) II. Or unconstitutionally interfere with 183 U, S. 79, 46 L. ed. 92, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. the right to pursue a lawful occupation, for: two years' experience in the position of con., lating such employment discriminates arbiductor.” The court says: “The act pre-trarily against the equal right of some class scribes no standard and no test of efficiency; of citizens of the United States, or some arbitrarily says who may labor at a given class of persons within its jurisdiction, as, employment, and who may not, and fails to for example, on acount of race or color, that provide for the safety of the public, which the civil rights of such persons are invaded, must have been the purpose of any lawful and the protection of the Federal Constiexercise of the police power of the state." tution can be invoked to protect the in

A statute requiring all flagmen on pas- dividual in his employment or calling. The senger, mail, or express trains to have at complainants' case is not within this proleast one year's experience as brakemen tection. They have not been deprived of was, however, held to be within the police any of the equal rights of citizens or perpower of the state, in Simpson v. Geary, sons. The state law applies to all persons 204 Fed. 507. The court assigns the follow. alike, without discrimination, whether citiing reason : “The right to contract for and zens of the United States or persons withretain employment in a given occupation or in its jurisdiction, and it is plainly a regucalling is not a right secured by the Con-lation enacted under the police power of stitution of the United States, nor by any the state, having for its purpose the safety Constitution. It is primarily a natural of passengers on the railways operating right, and it is only when a state law regu- / within the state.”

E. L. D.


A man has no right to engage in or pur. Missouri, K. & T. R. Co. v. May, 194 sue any calling, the proper prosecution of U. S. 267, 48 L. ed. 971, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. which requires a certain amount of tech- 638. nical knowledge or professional skill, the

Unless regulations respecting the purlack of which may result in material in- suit of a lawful trade or business are jury to the public or individuals, which so utterly unreasonable and extravagant in can be controlled in all cases, or, in proper their nature and purpose that the property cases, to be taken away by state legislation. and personal rights of the citizen are un

Lochner 'v. New York, 198 U. S. 53, 49 necessarily, and in a manner wholly arbiL. ed. 940, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 539, 3 Ann. trary, interfered with or destroyed without Cas. 1133; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, due process of law, they do not extend be31 L. ed. 508, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 yond the power of the state to pass, and Sup. Ct. Rep. 564; Nashville, C. & St. L. they form no subject for Federal interferR. Co. v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, 32 L. ed.ence. 352, 2 Inters. Com. Rep. 238, 9 Sup. Ct. Gundling v. Chicago, 177 U. S. 183, 188, Rep. 28; Olsen v. Smith, Tex. Civ. App. 44 L. ed. 725, 728, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 633.

68 S. W. 320, 195 U. S. 332, 49 L. ed. 224, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 52; 1 Tiedeman, State

Mr. Justice Lamar delivered the opinion & Federal Control of Persons & Property, p.

of the court: 242.

W. W. Smith, the plaintiff in error, a The legislature, having the power to pre- man forty-seven years of age, had spent vent unqualified men from pursuing the twenty-one years in the railroad business. occupation of conductors, bad also the He had never been a brakeman or a conpower to classify and the power to pre- ductor, but for six years he served as firescribe the one qualification of prior service. man, for three years ran as extra engineer

Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 31 L. on a freight train, for eight years was ed. 508, 1 Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. engineer on a mixed train, hauling freight Ct. Rep. 564; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. and passengers, and for four years had v. Alabama, 128 U. S. 96, 32 L. ed. 352, 2 been engineer on a passenger train of the Inters. Com. Rep. 238, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. Texas & Gulf Railway. On July 22, 1910, 28; Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 122, he acted as conductor of a freight train 123, 32 L. ed. 626, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 231; running between two Texas towns on that Watson v. Maryland, 218 U. S. 173, 54 L. road. There is no claim in the brief for ed. 987, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 644; Jones v. the state that he was not competent to Brim, 165 U. S. 180, 183, 41 L. ed. 677, perform the duties of that position. On 678, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 282, 1 Am. Neg. the contrary, it affirmatively and without Rep. 547; Hawker v. New York, 170 U. S. contradiction appeared that the plaintiff in 191, 193, 197, 198, 42 L. ed. 1004, 1006, error, like other locomotive engineers, was 1007, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 573; Re County- familiar with the duties of that position, Seat of Linn County, 15 Kan. 528; Ex and was competent to discharge them with parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 379, 18 L. ed. skill and efficiency. He was, however, 366, 370; Re Admission to the Bar, 61 Neb. found guilty of the offense of violating the 58, 84 N. W. 611; Wilson's Application, 9 Texas statute which makes it unlawful for Pa. Dist. R. 102; Re Dunn, 43 N. J. L. 359, any person to actf as conductor of a freight 39 Am. Rep. 600; A. B.'s Application, 4 train without having previously served for Johns. 191; Anonymous, 3 Wend. 456; Ex two years as conductor or brakeman on parte Sayre, 7 Cow. 368; Com. ex rel. Brack. enridge v. Cumberland County, 1 Serg. &

*Sec, 2. If any person shall act or engage R. 187; Re Admission to Practice, 14 s. to act as a conductor on a railroad train D. 429, 85 N. W. 992; Re Lockwood, 154 in this state without having for two (2) U. S. 116, 38 L. ed. 929, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. the capacity of a brakeman or conductor

years prior thereto served or worked in 1082; Williams v. People, 121 Ill. 84, 11

on a freight train on a line of railroad, he N. E. 881; State v. Creditor, 44 Kan. 565, shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, 21 Am. St. Rep. 306, 24 Pac. 346; State v. and shall be punished by a fine of not less Vandersluis, 42 Minn. 129, 6 L.R.A. 119, than $25 nor more than $500, and each 43 N. W. 789; Bradwell v. Illinois, 16 Wall. day he so engages shall constitute a separate 130, 21 L. ed. 442.


Sec. 3. If any person shall knowingly enWhen a state legislature has declared

gage, promote, require, persuade, prevail that, in its opinion, public policy requires upon, or cause any person to do any act in a certain measure, its action should not be violation of the provisions of the two predisturbed under the 14th Amendment un- ceding sections of this act, he shall be less the court can clearly see that there deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall is no fair reason for the law that would be punished by a fine of not less than $25

nor more than $500, and each day he so not require with equal force its extension engages shall constitute a separate offense. to others whom it leaves untouched. [Tex. Laws 1909, chap. 46.]

such trains. On that verdict he was sen., plaintiff in error is that of Dent v. West tenced to pay a fine, and the judgment hav- Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 32 L. ed. 623, 9 ing been affirmed, the case is here on a Sup. Ct. Rep. 231. The act there under record in which he contends that the sta- review provided that no one except licensed tute under which he was convicted vio- physicians should be allowed to practise lated the provisions of the 14th Amend medicine, and declared that licenses should ment.

be issued by the state board of health only 1. Life, liberty, property, and the equal to those (1) who were graduates of a protection of the law, grouped together in reputable medical college; (2) to those who the Constitution, are so related that the had practised medicine continuously for ten deprivation of any one of those separate years; or (3) to those who, after examand independent rights may lessen or ex. ination, were found qualified to practise. tinguish the value of the other three. In so Ten years' experience was accepted as proof far as a man is deprived of the right to of fitness, but such experience was not made labor, his liberty is restricted, his capacity the sole test, since the privilege of practo earn wages and acquire property is less- tising was attainable by all others who, ened, and he is denied the protection which by producing a diploma or by standing an the law affords those who are permitted to examination, could show that they were work. Liberty means more than freedom qualified for the performance of the duties from servitude, and the constitutional of the profession. In answer to the conguaranty is an assurance that the citizen tention that the act was void because it shall be protected in the right to use his deprived the citizen of the liberty to conpowers of mind and body in any lawful tract and the right to labor, the court said calling.

no objection could be raised to the statuIf the service is public, the state may pre- tory requirements “because of their strinscribe qualifications and require an exam gency or difficulty. It is only when they ination to test the fitness of any person to have no relation to such calling or proengage in or remain in the public calling. fession, or are unattainable by such reasonRe Lockwood, 154 U. S. 116, 38 L. ed. 929, able study and application, that they can 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1082; Hawker v. New operate to deprive one of his right to purYork, 170 U. S. 189, 42 L. ed. 1002, 18 Sup. sue a lawful vocation." Ct. Rep. 573; Watson v. Maryland, 218 The necessity of avoiding the fixing of U. S. 173, 54 L. ed. 987, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. arbitrary tests by which competent persons 644. The private employer may likewise would be excluded from lawful employment fix standards and tests, but, if his busi- is also recognized in Smith v. Alabama, ness is one in which the public health or 124 U. S. 465, 480, 31 L. ed. 508, 513, 1 safety is concerned, the state may legislate Inters. Com. Rep. 804, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 564. so as to exclude from work in such private | There the act provided that all engineers calling those whose incompetence might should secure a license, and in sustaining cause injury to the public. But, as the the validity of the statute the court pointed public interest is the basis of such legisla- out that the law "requires that every loco. tion, the tests and prohibition should be motive engineer shall have a license, but it enacted with reference to that object, and does not limit the number of persons who so as not unduly to "interfere with private may be licensed, or prescribe any arbitrary business, or impose unusual and unneces- conditions of the grant." This and the sary restrictions upon lawful occupations.” other cases establish, beyond controversy, Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 137, 38 L. ed. that, in the exercise of the police power, 388, 14 Sup. Ct. Rep. 499.

the state may prescribe tests and require A discussion of legislation of this nature a license from those who wish to engage is found in Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. in or remain in a private calling affecting Alabama, 128 U. S. 98, 32 L. ed. 353, 2 the public safety. The liberty of contract Inters. Com. Rep. 238, 9 Sup. Ct. Rep. 28, is, of course, not unlimited; but there is where this court sustained the validity of no reason or authority for the proposition a statute which required all locomotive that conditions may be imposed by statute engineers to submit to an examination for which will admit some who are competent color blindness, and then provided that and arbitrarily exclude others who are those unable to distinguish signals should equally competent to labor on terms munot act as engineers on railroad trains. tually satisfactory to employer and emThat statute did not prevent any compe- ployee. None of the cases sustains the tent person from being employed, but oper- proposition that, under the power to secure ated merely to exclude those who, on exam- the public safety, a privileged class can be ination, were found to be physically unit created and be then given a monopoly of for the discharge of a duty where defective the right to work in a special or favored ryesight was almost certain to cause loss position. Such a statute would shut the of life or limb. Another case cited by the I door, without a hearing, upon many persons

[ocr errors][ocr errors]


and classes of persons who were competent excludes the engineer on a freight train,to serve, and would deprive them of the even though, under the rules of all railroads, liberty to work in a calling they were quali- the freight engineer now acts as conductor fied to fill with safety to the public and in the event the regular conductor is disbenefit to themselves.

abled en route. This general custom is a 2. The statute here under consideration practical recognition of their qualification, permits those who had been freight con- and is founded on the fact that the engiductors for two years before the law was néer, by virtue of his position, is familiar passed, and, those who for two years have with the rules and signals relating to the been freight conductors in other states, to train's movement, and peculiarly qualified act in the same capacity in the state of for the performance of the duties of conTexas. But barring these exceptional cases, ductor. If we cannot take judicial knowlthe act permits brakemen on freight trains edge of these facts, the record contains to be promoted to the position of conductor affirmative proof on the subject. For, ac

a freight train, but excludes all other cording to the testimonyř of the state's citizens of the United States from the right witness, "acting as engineer on a freight to engage in such service. The statute does train would better acquaint one with the not require the brakeman to prove his fit. knowledge of how to operate a freight train ness, though it does prevent all others from than acting as brakeman." And yet, though showing that they are competent. The act prescribes no other qualification for

+ I understand the railroad business, and

appointment as conductor than that for two much about how a freight train should be

know that a locomotive engineer learns as years the applicant should have been a brakeman on a freight train, but affords operated by a conductor as a brakeman or

conductor. Acting as engineer on a freight no opportunity to any others to prove their train will better acquaint one with a knowlfitness. It thus absolutely excludes the edge of how to operate a freight train than whole body of the public, including many acting as a brakeman. Under the rules of railroad men, from the right to secure em. all railroads, and of the Texas & Gulf Railployment as conductor on a freight train. way Company, the engineer is held equally

For it is to be noted that under this responsible with the conductor for the safe statute, not only the general public, but operation of the train. All orders are given

to the engineer as well as to the conductor. also four classes of railroad men, familiar Every order sent to a conductor in a train with the movement and operation of trains, is made in duplicate, and one copy of it and having the same kind of experience as is given to the conductor and the other to a brakeman, are given no chance to show the engineer. It is a rule with railway comtheir competency, but are arbitrarily de- panies that if anything should happen to nied the right to act as conductors. The disable the conductor, or in any way prestatute excludes firemen and engineers of vent his proceeding with his train, the enall trains, and all brakemen and conductors Train and handle it into the terminal.

gineer is to immediately take charge of the of passenger trains. But no reason is sug- engineer is constantly with the train and gested why & brakeman on

a passenger knows all of the signals, knows how the train should be denied the right to serve in couplings are made, knows how the cars a position that the brakeman on a freight are switched and distributed, and knows train is permitted to fill, Both have the how they are taken into the train and transsame class of work to do, both acquire the ported from one place to another. An engisame familiarity with rules, signals, and

neer is so constantly associated with all the methods of moving and distributing cars, he should know as much about how a

work of a conductor on a freight train that and if the training of one qualifies him to freight train should be operated by a conserve as conductor, the like training of the ductor as the conductor himself. other should not exclude him from the tions of the conductor that pertain to the right to earn his living in the same occupa safe operation of the train are being cartion.

ried on in his presence and within his ob. It is argued in the brief for the state servation all the time. The matter of handthat, in practice, brakemen on freight trains destinations of the cars in his train is easy

ling the waybills and ascertaining the are generally promoted to the position of and plain, and it does not take a person freight conductors, and then to the posi- that has had experience as a conductor to tion of conductors on passenger trains. And understand that part of his service. The yet, under this act, even passenger con- waybills are plainly written and the destiductors of the greatest experience and nations plainly given, and booking the way. highest capacity would be punished if they bills and delivering them with the cars is acted as freight conductors without having clerical, and can be done by anyone that previously been brakemen.

can read and write and who has ordinary The statute not only prevents experienced engineer, and all of the conductor's acts

sense. Every act that is to be done by the and competent men in the passenger service with reference to this are in the view and from acting as freight conductors, but it observation of the engineer.

All ac

« AnteriorContinuar »