Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB

Congress, January 26, 1914, at which the statistics were submitted and arguments made on both sides. The committee reported favorably upon the bill and stated succinctly the case for its passage (Rept. No. 975, 63d Cong., 2d sess.). Later, on February 2, 1915, a further hearing was had before a subcommittee of the Committee on Interstate Commerce of the Senate, at which a strong delegation of representatives of the railroads appeared and the representatives of the transportation brotherhoods. The Senate committee made a favorable report upon the bill, but, owing to the peculiar situation in that body and the condition of the calendar, final action was not possible. Since that time the Interstate Commerce Commission, in its Twenty-ninth Annual Report, December 1, 1915, has renewed its recommendation made in previous reports "that the penalty of not to exceed $500' be supplemented by a provision for a minimum penalty of $100."

The Interstate Commerce Commission has compiled and published a statistical analysis of carriers' monthly hours of service reports for the years 1913, 1914, and 1915, and our opinion is that when the 1913 analysis came out it showed such a staggering total of instances of excess service and indicated such deplorable conditions on many of the roads that the carriers were themselves ashamed of their record and have put forth efforts to alleviate this condition.

The report of the commission for 1915 contains the following (p. 51): Of the certified reports of 1,238 carriers filed during the year, 819 report that no excess service was either required or permitted upon their respective lines of railroad; the remaining 419 carriers report an aggregate of 78,940 instances of excess service of all classes beyond the statutory periods.

The statistical analysis of these reports shows a marked improvement as compared with former years, the total number of instances of excess service reported being 78,940, which is 86,365 less than the number reported for last year and 222,803 less than for the preceding year. It is believed that the number is still unduly large and that further efforts should be made to avoid the retention of employees on duty beyond the prescribed periods.

Any number of instances of service in excess of 16 hours is "unduly large" and we agree with the report of this committee, above referred to, that "the adoption of this amendment will undoubtedly tend to a strict observance of the law."

It has been suggested that a minimum fine in an act of this kind would be an exception to the general rule, but it is believed that an examination of the various acts passed by Congress to regulate railroads will show that the laws that have been passed for the protection of life and limb have been almost universally weaker in their penalty provisions than others, and that this amendment, instead of being exceptional or unreasonable, will make the 16-hour law conform more nearly to the provisions of the other acts.

A violation of the act to prevent cruelty to animals while in transit, commonly known as the 28-hour law, is punishable by a "penalty of not less than $100 nor more than $500." Comparing this provision with that in the hours-of-service act, one would be justified in assuming that in the eyes of Congress the care of animals in transit was a matter of more concern to the public welfare than the condition of the man who holds the throttle or shovels the coal or tends the brakes or takes the orders that governs the movement of the train on which the cattle are being hauled.

The following is a digest of the penalties fixed by acts regulating railroads administered by the Interstate Commerce Commission:

The act to regulate commerce in general, as amended June 29, 1906, April 13, 1908, June 18, 1910: "Not to exceed $5,000 for each offense * * and imprisonment

*

in the penitentiary for a term of not exceeding two years, or both fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court."

Same, for giving or receiving information relative to shipments: "Not more than $1,000."

Same, failure to keep accounts or records as prescribed by the commission or to allow inspection thereof: "The sum of $500 for each such offense and for each and every day of the continuance of such offense."

Same, false entry in accounts or records, or mutilation of accounts or records, or for keeping other accounts than those prescribed: "Not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, or imprisonment for a term not less than one year nor more than three years, or both such fine and imprisonment.'

[ocr errors]

Same, special examiner who divulges information without authority: "Not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or both."

The Elkins Act, as amended June 29, 1906: "Not less than $1,000 nor more than $20,000 for each offense."

Government-aided railroad and telegraph act, August 7, 1888; failure to comply with act or orders of the commission: Not exceeding $1,000, and may be imprisoned

not less than six months."

Same, penalties for refusal to make reports to the commission: "Not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000."

Free passes and free transportation prohibited: "Not less than $1,000 nor more than $2,000."

Compulsory testimony act, February 11, 1893: "Not less than $100 nor more than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both such fine and imprisonment.'

Safety appliance acts, as amended April 1, 1896, and subsequently: "Penalty of $100 for each and every violation."

Accident reports act, May 6, 1910, failure to make reports within 30 days after end of any month: "Not more than $100 for each and every offense and for every day." Hours-of-service act, March 4, 1907: "Not to exceed $500 for each and every viola

tion."

Ash-pan act, May 30, 1908: "Penalty of $200 for each and every violation."

Boiler-inspection act, February 17, 1911: "Penalty of $100 for each and every such

violation."

Care of animals in transit, to prevent cruelty to animals in transit: "Not less than $100 nor more than $500.'

The courts have taken advantage of the latitude allowed by the statute, and the widest possible variation has existed in the amounts assessed, although in a remarkably few number of cases the maximum penalty has been imposed.

In a tabulation of 271 cases, embracing 4,265 counts in which violations have been made out and penalties imposed by the courts, the following is shown:

In 4 counts costs were assessed; in 6 counts 1 cent was assessed; in 18 counts 6 cents was assessed; in 1 count $1 was assessed; in 20 counts $1.25 was assessed; in 2 counts $2.50 was assessed; in 15 counts $3 was assessed; in 5 counts $3.40 was assessed; in 24 counts $4.16 was assessed; in 21 counts $4.76 was assessed; in 51 counts $5 was assessed; in 2 counts $5.50 was assessed; in 20 counts $5.56 was assessed; in 8 counts $6.34 was assessed; in 15 counts $6.67 was assessed; in 20 counts $7.50 was assessed; in 7 counts $7.85 was assessed; in 75 counts $8.34 was assessed; in 16 counts $9.38 was assessed; in 525 counts $10 was assessed; in 602 counts amounts between $10 and $25 was assessed; in 511 counts $25 was assessed; in 503 counts amounts between $25 and $50 was assessed; in 631 counts $50 was assessed; in 312 counts amounts between $50 and $100 was assessed; in 696 counts $100 was assessed; in 145 counts amounts between $100 and $250 was assessed; in 2 counts $250 was assessed; in 1 count $300 was assessed; in 7 counts $500 was assessed.

In all except nine counts out of the total 4,265, the penalty assessed was less than $250, which is the mean.

The average per count for all violations prosecuted to judgment was $37.58.

Hon. WILLIAM C. ADAMSON,

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION,
Washington, February 16, 1916.

Chairman Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR JUDGE ADAMSON: In regard to House bill 9132, entitled "A bill to amend section 3 of an act entitled 'An act to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads by limiting the hours and of service of employees thereon,' approved March 4, 1907," referred to this commission for an expression of its views with respect thereto, it appears that the only change from the existing law which this bill would effect, if enacted, would be to fix a minimum penalty of $100 for a violation of the act to which this is a proposed amendment. This proposed change is in accordance with recommendations of the commission heretofore made, and would bring this provision in harmony with other provisions of the law wherein minimum, as well as maximum, penalties or forfeitures are provided.

Very truly, yours,

[merged small][ocr errors]

PREDACIOUS FISHES AND AQUATIC ANIMALS.

APRIL 27, 1916.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed.

Mr. HINDS, from the Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, submitted the following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 4401.]

The Committee on the Merchant Marine and Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4401) to conduct investigations and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by predacious fishes and aquatic animals, report the same back with the recommendation that the bill do pass.

This bill is substantially the same as the bill (H. R. 11254) which is on the House Calendar (Rept. No. 309, Union Calendar No. 60). Section 1 of the House and Senate bills are the same.

Section 2 of the House bill down to the semicolon in line 12 is the same as all of section 2 of the Senate bill.

Section 3 of the two bills are practically the same, with the exception that the Senate bill makes the appropriation of $25,000 immediately available on the passage of the act.

The Senate bill is as follows:

AN ACT To conduct investigations and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by predacious fishes and aquatic animals.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Commissioner of Fisheries be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to conduct investigations and experiments for the purpose of ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by dogfish and other predacious fishes and aquatic animals.

SEC. 2. That the said investigations and experiments shall be such as to develop the best and cheapest means of taking such fishes and aquatic animals, of utilizing them for economic purposes, especially for food, and to encourage the establishment of fisheries and markets for them.

SEC. 3. That the sum of $25,000, or so much thereof as may be necessary, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to enable the Commissioner of Fisheries to carry out the provisions of this act, the same to be immediately available.

The report of Senate committee is as follows:

[Senate Report No. 252, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.]

The Committee on Fisheries, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4401) to conduct investigations and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by predacious fishes and aquatic animals, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass in a new draft herewith submitted.

The SOLICITOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMERce:

FEBRUARY 17, 1916.

In reply to your letter of February 14, requesting an expression of opinion of House bill 11254, "To conduct investigations and experiments for ameliorating the damage wrought to the fisheries by predacious fishes and aquatic animals," I report thereon as follows:

This bill is intended primarily and immediately for the relief of the fishermen of the Atlantic coast and, eventually, those of the Pacific coast, from the effects of the ruinous inroads of dogfishes. These are small sharks, which congregate in schools, and there are two species common on the Atlantic coast-the spiny dogfish found north of Cape Cod and the smooth dogfish occurring in a more southerly habitat. These differ more or less in habits, but are alike in being great nuisances on account of their practice of eating baits and seizing the food fish caught on lines and in nets. It is not believed by the bureau that the smooth dogfishes, at least, destroy very considerable numbers of free fish-that is, those which are uninjured or untrammeled by nets. The food of the smooth dogfish consists mainly of bottom animals, mussels, scallops, sea snails, crabs, starfishes, etc., and it also, unlike the spiny dogfish, whose food is less known, in certain places and at certain seasons destroys considerable numbers of lobsters. The stomachs of both species often contain food fishes and fragments of fishes, but there is good reason to believe that they come largely from lines and nets.

The fishermen justly regard these small sharks with strong disfavor as sources of annoyance and of very considerable loss to the fisheries; and in many places fishing has to be abandoned when the dogfishes appear.

Three methods of meeting this situation have been proposed: (1) To offer a bounty for the destruction of the fishes; (2) to establish a number of Government-owned reduction works for their conversion into fertilizer and oil, paying for the fish in excess of their economic value in order to induce the fishermen to catch them; and (3) to endeavor to establish them in the markets as a food fish, using the liver, oil, eggs, and skins as economic by-products.

The first two proposals are predicated on the assumption that the dogfishes can be exterminated or materially reduced in number, a belief to which the bureau can not subscribe. Both of the little sharks are found on the European and American coasts, and they range over the greater part of the North Atlantic. They are highly nomadic, and a school on the coast one week may be far away the next and may never return. Their wanderings are so wide, their numbers so great, and the reservoir from which the coastal visitors may be drawn is so vast that it is futile to expect that catching them at even a considerable number of places along shore can have a material effect in reducing their numbers.

If these fish could be utilized for fertilizer at even a small profit there would be justification for their use in that way, but the experience of the Canadian Government, which operates three dogfish reduction works, shows that they can be converted into fertilizer only at a heavy loss, and this experience is corroborated by this bureau's investigations of the oil and fertilizer constituents of the fish.

The proposition to pay a bounty without utilizing the fishes is open to obvious objections.

While the bureau is opposed to these proposed measures on account of their imprac ticability and economic unsoundness, it is in sympathy with their purpose, and i believes that H. R. 11254, on which you now ask an opinion, affords an opportunity to attack the problems involved and in the course of time to solve them in a manner to afford relief to the fishermen and benefit to the people as a whole. The belief is entertained that the proper method of procedure is not to exterminate the dogfish by indiscriminate destruction, but to convert a nuisance into an economically useful product and a source of profit. It is believed that the only way in which this can be accomplished is to induce the utilization of this pest as food. Although this has been scoffed at by some who would be the first and principal beneficiaries, the project is practical and economically sound. The dogfish is not eaten in the United States

« ZurückWeiter »