ployees should not be given effect by the courts, the purpose of such releases being to evade the spirit of the statute.

In a somewhat similar case, United States v. Minneapolis & St. Louis R. R. Co., 236 Fed., 414, in the District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, it was held that absolute releases for 2 hours, and 2 hours and 20 minutes, at meal time were not periods of "substantial rest," or " opportune periods" for rest, and should be counted as part of the trainmen's "on duty " period. This was affirmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, July 21, 1917.

In United States v. San Pedro, Los Angeles & Salt Lake Railroad Company, January 4, 1917, the District Court for the Southern District of California, held that the continuity of service of a train crew was broken by a release given to them in the course of that trip for a definite time notwithstanding the fact that the carrier reserved the right to revoke the release and call them back to duty if their services were needed in the meantime.

In United States v. Denver & Rio Grande Railroad Company, July 25, 1916, unreported, the District Court for the District of Colorado held that the mere fact that the railroad company had made no provision for places of rest during the time employees in helper service were laid off for periods while they were waiting for trains, during which periods the employees were neither required nor permitted to do any work, would not warrant such crews being considered on duty during these waiting periods.

In United States v. Southern Pacific Company, submitted December 10, 1916, the District Court for the District of Arizona ruled that if under the contract of the employees with the railroad company the latter was required to pay the employees for the time covered by a release, that fact, standing alone, would not authorize a conclusion that the time covered by the release was time on duty, but that it was a circumstance which the jury might consider in connection with all the other facts and circumstances in the case; that the weight of it was for the jury to determine. This is the first ruling by any court that payment for a time covered by an alleged release period may be considered by a jury in determining whether or not employees were "on duty" during such period.

United States v. Pennsylvania Railroad, 239 Fed., 576, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, involved the question of the application of the nine-hour provision in section 2 of the hours of service act to yardmasters, who by the use of the telephone transmit and receive orders relative to movements of trains within yard limits, including main-track movements through such yards. The court held that the nine-hour limitation was applicable to such service and that the words, "other employees," in the operators' proviso do not mean other employees in similar service, but are to

be given an interpretation to mean "and also." In effect, the decision follows the decision in Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific Ry. Co. v. United States, 226 Fed., 27.

In another case, United States v. Pennsylvania Co., 239 Fed., 761, the District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania held that the carrier was not liable where it started a train from a terminal with full knowledge that a wreck had occurred along its line, resulting in a delay to the train in question. The court based its reasoning upon, first, the fact that when the train left the terminal the dispatcher had received a report from the conductor of the wrecked train that the track would be clear so as not to delay traffic, particularly the train involved; and, second, because it construed the phrase in the proviso "nor where the delay was due to a cause not known

* * *

at the time the train left a terminal," as a fourth exception in addition to, and not qualifying, "casualty, unavoidable accident, or act of God."

The District Court for the District of Kansas, in United States v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., decided November 20, 1916, held that three meal-hour periods of one hour each allowed an operator, during which periods he was subject to call only in case of emergency, should not be counted in computing the operator's time on duty; also that the office in question, which was operated daily from 4.45 a. m. to 8.45 p. m., except during the three meal-hour periods, was an office "operated only during the daytime," or a 13-hour office.

In United States v. Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific, decided March 2, 1917, the same court held that the meal-hour period should be counted as a part of the time on duty for the reason that during such period the operator was subject to call.

In United States v. Grand Rapids & Indiana Ry., decided October 6, 1916, the District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan held an office to be one "continuously operated night and day," the facts being that the office or tower was in charge of an operator from 7 p. m. to 7.30 a m., but during the daytime, while no operator was on duty, the telephones therein were accessible to conductors and enginemen, who personally used the same to receive orders similar to those received by the operator during the night. In the same case an office was held to be a continuously operated office, although during the night that particular building was closed and similar work was performed over the telephone or telegraph from a box car located three-eighths of a mile away.

In United States v. Minneapolis, St. Paul & Sault Ste. Marie Railway, now pending on writ of error in the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, the District Court for the District of Minnesota held a telegraph office to be one "operated only

during the daytime," where the regular assigned hours of the one operator were as follows: From 7 a. m. to 6 p. m., with one hour off about the middle of the day for dinner; from 12.34 a. m. until about 10 minutes after departure of a train due to leave there at 12.54 a. m.; then again from 4.10 a. m. until 10 minutes after the departure of a train due to leave at 4.40 a. m.

MEDALS OF HONOR.

The investigation of applications for medals of honor under the act of February 23, 1905, has been continued, and two such medals have been awarded during the past fiscal year. The act authorizes the President to bestow bronze medals of honor upon persons who by extreme daring endanger their own lives in saving, or endeavoring to save, lives from any wreck, disaster, or grave accident, or in preventing, or endeavoring to prevent, such wreck, disaster, or grave accident upon any railroad within the United States engaged in interstate commerce.

Since the passage of this act 31 applications for medals have been filed, 22 of which have been approved and medals awarded, including the 2 awarded during the past fiscal year, and 9 applications for medals have been denied.

INVESTIGATION OF ACCIDENTS.

During the year ended June 30, 1917, 80 train accidents, comprising 54 collisions and 26 derailments, were investigated by the Commission. In these accidents 174 persons were killed and 827 persons were injured; the collisions caused the death of 132 persons and the injury of 638 persons, while in the derailments 42 persons were killed and 189 were injured.

Twenty-one of the collisions investigated occurred on block signaled lines, 11 in automatic block signal territory, and 10 in nonautomatic block signal territory, while 33 of the collisions occurred on lines operated by the train order and time interval system.

Of the 11 collisions investigated which occurred in automatic block signal territory, 8 were due to failure of enginemen to obey signal indications. This comparatively large number of accidents of that character emphasizes the necessity for the development and use of some form of automatic train control device to supplement existing block signal apparatus. The need of such devices has been pointed out in previous annual reports and in numerous reports upon accident investigations, and during the past four years several reports containing results of experimental tests of different automatic train control systems have been transmitted to the Congress.

Of the other three collisions investigated which occurred in automatic block signal territory, one was caused by failure of a switch tender to note the position of a switch indicator before opening a switch to permit a locomotive to make a crossover movement; and the other two were caused by improper practices confined to a large extent to the roads or the localities where these accidents occurred. The investigation of the collisions which occurred in nonautomatic block signal territory has almost without exception disclosed lax observance or enforcement of rules. Nearly all of these accidents which were investigated during the past year could have been averted by proper observance of the rules which were in effect. As was stated in the report for last year, it is obvious that the benefits provided by a manual block signal system can be secured only when rules are enforced and rigidly adhered to.

More than half of the collisions investigated during the past year occurred on lines operated by the train order and time interval system. In some of these cases inadequate operating rules were found, and in other instances it was found that practices not sanctioned by the rules were being followed. Many of these accidents were due to inherent weaknesses of the time interval method of operation, and a large proportion of them could have been prevented by a proper application of block signal principles.

In previous reports the Commission has recommended legislation requiring the standardization of railroad operating rules. It is essential to the safety of train operation that rules be explicit and uniform, capable of being easily understood and applied, and not liable to be misinterpreted. Such standardization of rules can be accomplished only by federal legislation, which the Commission again recommends.

Twelve of the 26 derailments investigated during the year were caused by defective condition of track and track equipment, and 3 were due to defective car and locomotive equipment. In 9 of the derailments speed was the direct cause or a contributing factor; 1 was caused by failure to obey a signal indication; and 1 by the neglect of a train crew to make proper tests of brakes, resulting in a runaway on a mountain grade.

The Commission's accident statistics demonstrate that a large percentage of the derailments occurring from year to year are due to two causes, namely, defects of equipment and defects of roadway. Investigations relative to failed material of both track and equipment have been continued during the past year, and several reports have been published containing the results of researches and experiments. Certain definite conclusions have been established relative to certain types of failure of rails and other materials.

INVESTIGATION OF SAFETY DEVICES.

Under authority of the act of October 22, 1913, experimental tests have been conducted during the past fiscal year of one automatic train control device, and a report upon this device has been transmitted to the Congress. Preliminary arrangements have been made for conducting experimental tests of one other train control system, as well as supplemental tests of the air brake system mentioned in the last annual report.

During the year plans of 111 devices were examined and opinions thereon transmitted to the proprietors.

The annual statistical report for January 1, 1917, containing block signal statistics indicates a net increase during the year of 1,832.3 miles of road operated by the block system, the total miles of road operated by the block system on January 1, 1917, being 98,407.9.

BUREAU OF LOCOMOTIVE INSPECTION.

The work of the bureau of locomotive inspection during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1917, although covering a wider field, due to the extension of the law, has been substantially similar in character to its work in previous years, and is shown in detail in the report of the chief inspector, which is published separately.

The tables given below show in concrete form the number of locomotives inspected, the number and percentage found defective and the number ordered out of service on account of not meeting the requirements of the law.

They also show the total number of accidents due to failure from any cause of locomotives and tenders and all parts and appurtenances thereof, and the number killed or injured thereby during the fiscal years of 1916 and 1917.

The amendment to the law requiring an inspection of locomotives and tenders and all parts and appurtenances thereof did not become effective until September 4, 1915; therefore, the record for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1916, includes accidents and casualties investigated under the amended law for 9 months and 26 days only.

LOCOMOTIVES INSPECTED, NUMBER FOUND DEFECTIVE, AND NUMBER ORDERED OUT OF SERVICE.