Balt. & Ohio R.R. Co. v. Interstate Com. Comm'n, 221 U.S. 612 (1911)

Sec . 2. That it shall be unlawful for any common carrier, its officers or agents, subject to this Act to require or permit any employ6 subject to this Act to be or remain on duty for a longer period than sixteen consecutive hours, and whenever any such employ^ of such common carrier shall have been continuously on duty for sixteen hours he shall be relieved and not required or permitted again to go on duty until he has had at least ten consecutive hours off duty; and no such employ^ who has been on duty sixteen hours in the aggregate in any twenty-four-hour period shall be required or permitted to continue or again go on duty without having had at least eight consecutive hours off duty: Provided, That no operator, train dispatcher, or other employ^ 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 employ6s named in this proviso may be permitted to be and remain on duty for four additional hours in a twenty-four-hour 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 p. 615making the order was to secure from carriers evidence of infractions of the law in order that suits might be brought to recover penalties; that, even if this were not the purpose, the result of the requirement would be the same, because of the provision that the Commission should lodge with the proper district attorneys information of the violations coming to its knowledge; and that this compulsory disclosure, both as to the corporation itself and as to the officers concerned in such violations, was repugnant to the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the Constitution of the United States. It was also alleged

“That the provisions of this Act shall apply to any common carrier or carriers, their officers, agents, and employes, engaged in the transportation of passengers or property by railroad in the District of Columbia or any Territory of the United States, or from one State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia to any other State or Territory of the United States or the District of Columbia, or from any place in the United States to an adjacent foreign country, or from any place in the United States through a foreign country to any other place in the United States. The term ‘railroad’ as used in this Act shall include all bridges and ferries used or operated in connection with any railroad, and also all the road in use by any common carrier operating a p. 617railroad, whether owned or operated under a contract, agreement, or lease; and the term 1 employes’ as used in this Act shall be held to mean persons actually engaged in or connected with the movement of any train.”

This consideration, however, lends no support to the contention that the statute is invalid. For there cannot be denied to Congress the effective exercise of its constitutional authority. By virtue of its power to regulate interstate and foreign commerce, Congress may enact laws for the safeguarding of the persons and property that are transported in that commerce and of those who are employed in transporting them. Johnson v. Southern Pacific Company, 196 U. S. 1; Adair v. United States, 208 U. S. 177, 178; St. Louis, I, M. & S. Railway Company v. Taylor, 210 U. S. 281; Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railway Company v. United States, decided May 15, 1911, 220 U. S. 559. The fundamental question here is whether a restriction upon the hours of labor of employes who are connected with the movement of trains in interstate transportation is comprehended within this sphere of authorized legislation. This question admits of but one p. 619answer. The length of hours of service has direct relation to the efficiency of the human agencies upon which protection to life and property necessarily depends. This has been repeatedly emphasized in official reports of the Interstate Commerce Commission, and is a matter so plain as to require no elaboration. In its power suitably to provide for the safety of employes and travelers, Congress was not limited to the enactment of laws relating to mechanical appliances, but it was also competent to consider, and to endeavor to reduce, the dangers incident to the strain of excessive hours of duty on the part of engineers, conductors, train dispatchers, telegraphers, and other persons embraced within the class defined by the act. And in imposing restrictions having reasonable relation to this end there is no interference with liberty of contract as guaranteed by the Constitution. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. McGuire, 219 U. S. 549.

“Provided, That no operator, train dispatcher, . . . 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 day time, except in case of emergency, when the employes named in this p. 620proviso may be permitted to be and remain on duty for four additional hours in a twenty-four hour period on not exceeding three days in any week.”

The Commission then may call to its aid in the enforcement of the act “ all powers granted ” to it. And, although there might have been doubt as to the adequacy of the authority of the Commission, under the law as it formerly p. 621221 U <8. Opinion of the Court.

Nor can it be said, so far as the scope of the requirement of the order is concerned, that it goes beyond the authority which has been conferred upon the Commission. The order relates to the employes who are “subject to said act.” The bill alleges that, in the original forms prescribed, the carrier was required to show the employes who were “either on duty for a period of time in excess of that contemplated by the act or who had not been off duty after any period of service for the length of time prescribed by the act, and in the case of every such employ^ p. 622the carrier was required to state the cause of and the facts, if any, explanatory of the excess service thus rendered by the employe.” By the amended instructions set forth in the stipulation, it appears that “in case no employ^ has been employed in excess of the time named in said act, and in case no employe has gone on duty with less than the statutory period off duty,” a separate form of oath to that effect will be accepted in lieu of the forms which are to be used in detailing excess service. And, as already noted, the reports are to be made by the secretary or similar officer.

Nor can the corporation plead a privilege against self-crimination under the Fifth Amendment. Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 74, 75; Hammond Packing Company v. Arkansas, 212 U. S. 348, 349; Wilson v. United States, decided May 15, 1911, ante, p. 361. With respect to its officers, it would be sufficient to say that the privilege guaranteed to them by this amendment is a personal one which cannot be asserted on their behalf by the corporation. But the transactions to which the required reports relate are corporate transactions subject to the regulating power p. 623221 U. S. Syllabus.

Where the local authorities in the Philippine Islands, with full p. 624knowledge of the circumstances under which a grant was made, imposed taxes on the property for many, in this case thirty-nine, years, it is persuasive proof that the grant was valid and that the Governor General did not exceed his authority in making it.

“Acting upon the petition in which Don Jose Camps on November 17, 1858, solicited a grant for the land which he fills at his expense on the lowlands situated along the northern wharf (Murallon del Norte) and on the north side thereof, on the right side of the mouth of the Pasig River, with an extension of 200 brazas in length and 100 brazas in width, beginning at a distance of 25 varas (Spanish yards) west of the bridge built on said wharf for the connection of the waters of the river and of the bay from the Beach of Binondo, as appears on the plan hereto attached, to which land, after it has been filled in he intends to move his artistic establishment called ‘Camps e Hijos,’ and a manufactory of hemp rope; in view of the report made on the 26th of the said month of November by the Alcalde Mayor l.° of Manila, who, after consultation with the director of public works of the province, is of the opinion that the waste land asked for should be granted to Camps, said land being at present covered by the sea, and being far from the houses situated on the Binondo beach, it is very suitable for purposes of maritime commerce and it is convenient for the purpose of public adornment, that the foundry, iron-working and scientific instrument establishment of Camps 6 Hij os be located on that place provided that the said Camps shall agree not to erect such buildings with brick and stone or strong materials, for the reason that the same is outside of the military lines; in view of the report made on December 17, 1858, by the Commanding General of Marine, in agreement with the captain of the port regarding the convenience of such concession for the merchant marine and public adornment, but with the precise condition that Camps shall leave a distance of 16^ varas between the outside edge of the wharf and the intended building, which width is the one fixed for wharves; in view also of the report of the sub-inspector of engineers, with the approval of the commander of the vol . ccxxi—40 p. 626post, proposing that the concession asked for shall not be granted for a building of strong materials, on account of the forts of the place, and that the building to be erected shall consist of only one story, and shall be removed at the expense of its owner, at the discretion of the superior authority of the Islands, when the public interests so require, taking into consideration the circumstances and official and industrial merits of the said Don Jose Camps, and the offer of protection stated in the decree dated November 4, 1858, when refusing the sale, asked for by him, of an irregular piece of land adjoining the new Cuartel del Carenero, and in conformity with the above-mentioned reports of the commanding general of marine, the sub-inspector of engineers and the civil chief of the Province of Manila, I hereby decree: Don Jose Camps, comisario de guerra honorario, oficial mayor jubilado of the office of the secretary of his superior government, and director of the iron-working and nautical instrument establishment of Camps 6 Hijos, is granted the possession and ownership of a parcel of land 200 brazas in length and 100 brazas in width, covered at present by the waters of the sea, near the Binondo beach, which land is situated alongside the Muralion del Norte, and requested authority to fill in the same at his expense, is also hereby granted, subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

One member of the court (Johnson, J.) dissented because he was of opinion that the grant was not made upon condition that the land be reclaimed, and another member (Tracy, J.) dissented because he was of opinion that the grant, being of land covered by tidal waters, was one which only the King of Spain could make. Each of the parties p. 628has appealed to this court and has also sued out a writ of error.

It is the contention of the Insular Government and the City of Manila that the grant was unauthorized and void, first, because the King of Spain was without power to make it, and so could not devolve that power upon the Governor General, and second, because, even if the King possessed p. 629that power, he had not devolved it upon the Governor General.

Without doubt it was intended by this order to invest the Governor General with large powers and a wide range of discretion, fully commensurate with the situation in which they were to be exercised. The language used was general and comprehensive. Possibly, according to Spanish standards, its meaning was much the same as if it had been said directly that the Governor General of the Philippines was empowered thereby to do in that distant province whatever the King could do, if he were present, save where it was otherwise specially provided. The other orders bearing upon the subject are not inconsistent with p. 631that view of it. But whatever the original meaning of the order may have been, the one suggested was adopted and adhered to by the successive governors general, and their action in that regard was acquiesced in, and therefore ratified, by the King. Thus, in the course of approved usage, the order came to be, in effect, the same as the one relating to the viceroys of Peru and New Spain, which is embodied in law 2, title 3, book 3, Laws of the Indies, and declares, “they shall do what they may think and consider to be suitable, and provide for everything we might do, and provide for, of whatever quality and condition it may be, in the provinces under their charge, as if the same were governed by ourselves, in all cases where no special prohibition exists.”

Considering then that the Governor General, within the p. 633territory committed to his charge, possessed all the powers of his master, the King, save where it was otherwise specially provided, the question whether the grant was within or in excess of the authority of the Governor General is to be determined, not by inquiring whether there was a law or order specially confiding to him the disposal of tide land, but by inquiring whether there was a law or order specially prohibiting such a disposal; that is to say, the existence of power, being usual, will be presumed, and the absence of it, being exceptional, must be shown. United States v. Arredondo, 6 Pet. 691, 728; United States v. Clarke, 8 Pet. 436, 451.

What has been said sufficiently shows that the grant was made upon adequate authority, but there are other considerations which enforce this conclusion. The Spanish authorities at Manila, although familiar with what was done and claimed under the grant, and although in a position to know and enforce the law applicable to it, did not call it in question at any time during the thirty-nine years of Spanish dominion after it was made, but, on the contrary, treated it as valid by imposing taxes upon the land as private property. This is persuasive proof that in making the grant the Governor General did not exceed his authority. Besides, it must be presumed, there being no showing to the contrary, that he reported the grant to his superiors at Madrid, as was required by the royal order of January 4, 1856 (San Pedro’s Legislacion Ultramarina, p. 634vol. 1, p. 75), and therefore the fact that the grant went unchallenged, as it did, dispels all doubt of his authority.

Next to be considered is the contention, advanced by the Insular Government and the city of Manila, that the grant was made upon condition that the land be reclaimed from the sea and that “all title thereunder is defeated,” because part of the land has not as yet been reclaimed. The granting words, “is granted the possession and ownership,” are plain and import a present and immediate transfer of the ownership of all the land. There are no words of exception, nor any which purport to postpone the transfer until a later time. And while it clearly is contemplated that the land is to be reclaimed, there is no language which fixes a time for beginning or completing that work. Nor is the contemplated reclamation treated as the sole inducement to the grant, for it recites that it is made in consideration, inter alia, of “the official and industrial merits of the said Don Jose Camps and the offer of protection stated” in a prior decree. Thus, upon a survey of the grant, it is manifest that there was no express condition, either precedent or subsequent, that the land be reclaimed within any period of time. Of course, it was for the Governor General to judge of the restrictions to be imposed. He could have designated a time within which the reclamation should be effected, and could have made compliance with that requirement a condition, either precedent or subsequent. Or, if to him it seemed wise, he could have left the grantee free to effect the reclamation at such time as to the latter might seem practicable and advantageous, considering the cost of the undertaking, the means at hand for completing it, and the benefits to be derived from it. But the Governor General did not expressly adopt either of these alternatives. On the contrary, his will and purpose in that regard were expressed with such uncertainty that they could be determined only by resorting to interpretation. But that uncertainty was p. 635effectually eliminated before the termination of Spanish dominion in the Philippines. During the many intervening years the parties concerned, that is to say, the representatives of Spain and those claiming under the grant, pursued a course of action, heretofore described, which admits of no other conclusion than they concurred in treating the grant as embodying the latter of the two alternatives suggested. In that way a practical interpretation was given to the grant by those who were authorized to interpret it, and full effect must be given to that interpretation now.