THE SOLICITOR. 847 



THE TWENTY-EIGHT HOUR LAW. 



ENFORCEMENT OF THE ACT. 



During the fiscal year just passed the vigorous enforcement of 

 the twenty-eight hour law (act of June 29, 1906; 34 Stat., 607) was 

 consistently continued. The Department brought to the attention 

 of the Attorney-General 438 apparent violations of the statute during 

 that period. This is more than double the number of violations re- 

 ported in the preceding fiscal year, only 208 cases being transmitted 

 to the Department of Justice in that period. In the fiscal year 1908, 

 however, 685 cases were reported for prosecution. There has been 

 no slackening in the activity of the Department's inspectors, and the 

 results shown would make it appear that the common carriers are 

 not manifesting the same disposition to obey the act in the past fiscal 

 year as in the fiscal year preceding. In fairness, however, it should 

 DC said that a large number of violations out of this total occurred in 

 one district, so that the apparent disreo;ard of the statute is not cjuite 

 so general as would otherwise seem to oe the case. Of the 438 cases 

 reported, together with those coming over from the preceding fiscal 

 year, 559 were pending at the close of the past fiscal year; penalties were 

 assessed in 139 cases, and 29 cases were dismissed for insufficiency of 

 evidence. In the preceding fiscal year, of the 208 cases reported dur- 

 ing that period, together with those coming over from the preceding 

 fiscal year, 305 cases were pending at the close of June 30, 1909; 

 penalties were assessed in 617 cases, and 81 cases were dismissed 

 because of the insufficiency of evidence. In the fiscal year 1909, 33 

 cases, or about 5 per cent, resulted adversely to the Government; in 

 the fiscal year 1910, 19 cases were lost, or about 6 per cent of the 

 total. In 1909, the penalties collected amounted to $73,490; costs 

 paid SI 1,539.85. In 1910 penalties in the sum of $16,500 were re- 

 covered, and costs in the sum of $2,919.35 were paid. 



If there has been any considerable improvement in the methods of 

 handling stock in transit, it does not appear in the statistics of the 

 enforcement of the twenty-eight hour law during the fiscal year 1910. 

 More than twice as many instances of apparent violations of the 

 statute were reported in i910 as in the fiscal year preceding. It is 

 true that the amount of the penalties collected in 1909 is far greater 

 than in 1910, but tlus is due to the fact that more cases were reached 

 for trial in 1909 than in 1910. The Government does not regard the 

 twenty-eight hour law in the light of a revenue measure. Its purpose 

 is, of course, to protect live stock in interstate transportation. Expe- 

 rience in the enforcement of the present act lends some support to 

 the view that more adequate protection would be afl'orded live stock 

 if a provision were incorporated in the act requiring carriers to main- 

 tain a reasonable minimum speed on all stock trains. It often 

 happens, at the present time, that railroad companies comply rather 

 with the letter or the statute than its spirit. By unloading live stock 

 frequently tliey keep within the law, but great siiil'erin"; is thereby 

 inflicted on the animals, to say nothing of tlie achlitional expense to 

 the shippers, all of whicii would be avoided if carriers were required 

 to move live stock to destination with reasonable dispatch. The 

 enactment of such a measure would round out the existing act and 

 emphasize the desire of Congress that live stock in transit must be 



