THE SOLICITOE. 775 



shipment of live stock on which recovery from the Wabash Railroad Co. was predi- 

 cated. The court held that the cause of action for the penalty under the statute 

 was not so single that but one penalty could be recovered for the confinement of a 

 single shipment beyond the statutory period, although several connecting carriers 

 participated therein, and also held that the contrary of this interpretation, contended 

 for by counsel for the appellee, would violate two familiar rules: First, when the 

 language of a statute is unambiguous, it must be held to mean what it plainly expresses; 

 and second, that where the legislature has created a right of action against a certain 

 class of persons and made no exception, it is not the province of the courts to do so. 

 The judgment below was reversed, as contended for by the Government. 



United States v. Lehigh Valley Railroad Co. 



[Circular No. 44, OfQce of the Solicitor; not reported in the Federal Reporter.] 



These cases involved shipments of live stock from points in Michigan or Illinois to 

 Detroit, thence through Canada to Niagara Falls, and thence to points in New York. 

 In each case the cattle were confined in cars for more than 36 hours, without being fed 

 or watered, or unloaded for rest, contrary to the provisions of the act. It was argued, 

 on the part of the defendant companies, that the act had no application to a shipment 

 of live stock passing through a foreign country, en route from one State to another 

 State, and that the statutory period of confinement having expired before the cattle 

 came into the defendant's possession, no liability was incurred until another 28 or 36 

 hours had passed. The first contention was oveiTuled, the court saying that the ship- 

 ments were literally within the terms of the act, and also within the spirit. After a 

 review of the opinions in point, citations to which will be found in the decision itself, 

 the court overruled the second contention. The court further held that the question 

 whether a terminal road was liable under the statute for further transportation of stock 

 on which the statutory limit had expired, depended on whether such transportation 

 was a continuance of the original transportation or substantially a part of the process of 

 unloading. 



Baltimore & Ohio Southwestern Railroad Co. v. United States. 

 [Supreme Court of the United States, October term, 1910; Circular No. 46, Office of the Solicitor.] 



This case included II actions instituted against the defendant company in the south- 

 em district of Ohio. Most of the shipments were loaded at different times, but because 

 one shipment was forwarded under the 36-hour rule, its unloading time was the same 

 as that of another shipment moving under the 28-hour rule, and loaded 8 hours later 

 at another station; the loading time on two other shipments expired at the same time. 

 The defendant's motion for consolidation was sustained, a writ of error was sued out 

 by the Government, and the circuit court of appeals directed the entry of a separate 

 judgment on each cause of action. The Supreme Court held that the defendant 

 was liable for nine penalties, because nine times it failed to unload the stock, aa 

 required by the statute. No distinction, with reference to the number of penalties, 

 the court held, was to be based on the number of shipments confined; the different 

 shipments did not affect the duty of the carrier to the animals, but only the time 

 when the duty to unload was to be performed. The number of consignors, the con- 

 sent of the owner or agent in charge of the particular shipment that the cattle might 

 be confined 36 hours, the number of bills of lading, and the particulars of the shipment 

 were held to be immaterial, except so far as they served to fix the limit of lawful con- 

 finement. 



United States v. New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. 

 [Circular No. 48, Office of the Solicitor; not reported in the Federal Reporter.] 



This case involved a shipment of live stock from Chicago, 111., to New York, N. Y. 

 It was claimed by the United States that the cattle were packed so tightly in some of 

 the cars that they did not have proper space and opportunity to rest, as required by 

 the act. It was in evidence that, in one of the cars, 36 feet long, 21 bulls were loaded 

 side by side, and in a number of them 18 and 19 large cattle were carried. The court 

 found that the stock in these cases did not have sufficient space to lie down, certainly 

 not without danger of being injured by being trampled on by the others. It was 

 probably true, said the court, tha t they would not all want to lie down at the same time, 

 hut to compel cattle to stand for 65 hours continuously under such wearisome condi- 

 tions as must attend a transportation by rail for such a period of time is clearly a 

 serious form of cruelty. The evidence was uncontradicted that cattle under trans- 

 portation ought to have at least 2^ feet of space for each animal. That is the space 



