is, perhaps, not the same degree of improvement to report at this time, although there is some improvement to be noted even over the conditions of the previous year. Complaints of violations have been much less numerous and the report of the inspector shows fewer violations. The carriers are not only observing the law more carefully, but most of them have equipped themselves to enable them to meet the immediate requirements. During the past year the Commission has filed forty-nine suits against railroads for violation of the safety appliance laws (making one hundred and fifty-two filed since the Commission was organized), as follows: in Lorain County. Dec. 31, 1907, 2 cases against the B. & O. R. R. against the C. H. & D. Ry. Dec. 31, 1907, 1 case Dec. 31, 1907, 9 cases against the N. & W. Ry. in Allen County. Dec. 31, 1907, 11 cases against the P. C. C. & St. L. Ry. in Hamilton County. Dec. 26, 1907, 1 case against the T. St. L. & W. R.R. in Lucas County. Litigation Relative to the Enforcement of the Safety Appliance Statutes. The last report showed a number of cases pending throughout the state of Ohio against various railroad companies for violation of the safety appliance laws. These actions were brought by prosecut. ing attorneys upon complaint being filed by the state inspector of automatic couplers and air brakes, as directed by the Commission. There has been much delay in the prosecution of these cases for the reason that in almost every proceeding the defendants raised the question of jurisdiction, constitutionality of the act and sufficiency of the pleadings. A number of prosecuting attorneys waited until these questions were determined by courts in cases which raised practically all of the questions. State of Ohio versus L. S. & M. S. Ry. Co.-In this case, Judge Reed, of the common pleas court of Erie County, passed upon most of the questions which were being raised throughout the state. The court held that the act of March 19, 1906, entitled "An act to promote the safety of employes and travelers upon railroads by compelling common carriers by railroad in the state of Ohio to equip their cars with automatic couplers, sill steps, grab iron and continuous brakes," etc., 98 O. L. 75, was constitutional and that a similar act by congress, approved March 2, 1893, and amended April 1, 1896, did not withdraw from the states the right to regulate the means by which commerce is carried on within the state. The court held that congress, in passing the act, had left open to the state the right to take such steps as it might deem advisable for the safety and protection of employes and travelers upon the railroads wholly within the state. The court further held that the Ohio statute does not attempt in any way to regulate interstate commerce, and that suits might be prosecuted under it if the facts warranted. The traffic in the above named case was strictly intrastate, and the facts being sufficient, the court accordingly found the defendant guilty, the jury having been waived. The court further held that the action was not a criminal proceed. ing and that knowledge and intention were not elements which must be found to exist in order to warrant the court in assessing the penalty. It held that the rules of evidence pertaining to civil procedure should be applied. As to the reasonableness of the law as a police regulation, we quote from the opinion: "The object and purpose of this law is to protect the employes and the traveling public, and it would be unwise to give this law such a construction as to destroy the object and purpose of its enactment. "The defendant claims that the law should be liberally construed because of its harsh nature. Rather should it be reasonably construed to give it that force and effect which will insure to the public the protection which it affords." "The object and purpose of all such regulation is to protect those who are required to earn a livelihood by working in more or less dangerous places. Railroading is a hazardous business. Many men are required to follow that business for a livelihood, and the legislature in its wisdom has seen fit to throw around these men some safeguards that they may not be unnecessarily deprived of their limbs, and ofttimes of their lives, by being compelled to go between cars to make couplings. "If this law is too liberally construed so that a company may avoid by simply pleading ignorance of the condition of its cars and a want of intention to violate the act, then the very purpose of it is defeated. No injustice can be done by holding railroad companies to a strict accountability under this act, and should it result in the execution of a penalty at some time when it appears to be harsh, it is far better than that the court should give this law such a construction as would permit companies to be derelict in this respect, endangering the lives and limbs of the employes of the company and the traveling public. Considerations of humanity dictated the enactment of this law, and the same considerations call upon the courts to so construe the law and enforce it as will bring to those whom it was intended to safeguard the fullest and highest degree of protection which this law will afford." State of Ohio versus D. T. & I. Railroad Company. The principal defense in this action was that the car in question was commonly used in interstate traffic. It was not denied at the time set forth in the petition that it was being used in moving state traffic, but the defendant claimed that inasmuch as it was commonly used in moving interstate traffic that it came within the provisions of the federal statute and that the state court had no jurisdiction. Judge Middleton, of the common pleas court of Jackson County, in the above action held that it was the present use of the car, or the present intended use of the car, which should be controlling, and that the statute should not be applied to the train as a whole but to each separate car. This case seems to establish the proposition that a common carrier engaged in moving state traffic within this state violates the law when it hauls a defective car, which car is used in moving state traffic, although hauled in a train containing interstate cars. State of Ohio versus Baltimore & Ohio R. R. Co. In this action, Judge Hayden, of the Lorain County common pleas court, held that that court had jurisdiction of the subject of the action and that the statute should be so construed as not to defeat the purpose of the legislation and its intention in its enactment. The petition, which was the usual form, was held to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. State of Ohio versus Ohio River & Western Ry. Co.-Judge Pollock, of the common pleas court of Belmont County, in this action, passed upon a number of questions which were argued in connection with the similar case of State of Ohio v. B. & O. R. R. Co., pending in the same court. He held that the pleader need not negative the exceptions in the statute; that the action should be brought in the name of the state of Ohio by the prosecuting attorney of the county where the offense was committed; that the court had jurisdiction of the subject of the action; that the statute should not be construed so strictly as to destroy the intention of the law. The court there found the petition sufficient. Questions Settled.-It seems that these legal questions having been disposed of, the enforcement of the law will be easier in the future. These decisions have established: First. That the law is constitutional. Second. That the prosecuting attorney may bring an action in the name of the state. Third. That the action is a civil action. Fourth. That knowledge and intent are not essential elements of the offense. Fifth. That it is no defense to show that a defective car was in an interstate train. Sixth. That the law should be so construed as to give it force and effect. Seventh. That railroad companies should be held to a strict accountability. The other pending cases have been set down for early trial in the various courts and will no doubt be disposed of on their merits in the very near future. NEW TRANSPORTATION LAWS. The General Assembly at its last session enacted several laws amendatory, supplementary or complementary to the statutes affecting railroads. The Commission has caused the new acts to be compiled and printed for distribution, supplementary to the volume of transportation laws published two years ago. These new laws may be briefly summarized as follows: Waiving Right to Damages.-House Bill No. 787 amends Section 3270 (defining the powers of railroad companies) by prohibiting a railroad in the establishment or maintenance of a relief association from requiring an employe to waive any right for damages by reason of such employe joining such relief association or society. Highway Crossings.-House Bill No. 922 amends Section 4 of the act of April 25, 1904, entitled, "An act to provide how railroad and highway crossings may be constructed," (Section 3337-17m). The statute as it was related only to the construction of a new railroad. As amended, it provides for crossings in case of change or alteration in the location of a railroad or in the diversion, change or alteration of any existing highway, retaining the authority of the common pleas court to determine whether such crossing shall be at grade or otherwise, and also provides an appeal from the court's decision to the circuit court, as in civil actions, the decision of which court shall be final. Charging Excess Fare on Trains.-House Bill No. 894 supplements Section 3374 of the Revised Statutes by providing that any railroad company which shall have posted up proper notice thereof in a conspicuous place in each waiting room and on the front of its depot building may collect ten cents extra in addition to the fare allowed in Section 3374 when such fare is paid on the train, when the office at the point at which the passenger boarded the train has been open for the sale of tickets at least thirty minutes next prior to the time of departure of such train. Litigant Entitled to Attorney's Fees and Costs.-House Bill No. 836 amends Section 3324, 3325 and 3326. The statutes, as heretofore, require railroad companies to construct fences, crossings and cattle-guards, and the amendment allows the property holder who may be compelled to construct the fence by reason of the railroad company's negligence, attorney's fees not exceeding twentyfive dollars in addition to the costs thereof. Who May Ride Free.-House Bill No. 805 amends Sections 8, 14 and 31 of the Commission Act. The amendment to Section 8 mentions additional persons to whom free or reduced rate transportation may be issued. Joint Rates and Divisions.-The amendment to Section 14 confers upon the Commission power to fix joint rates between railroads, upon complaint, and apportion the divisions thereof. Award for Claims, Etc.-Section 31 is amended so as to confer upon the Commission power to make awards for claims, charges or demands against a railroad company for loss of or damage to property and for overcharges upon shipments. Protection at Rail Crossings.-Senate Bill No. 548 amends Section 2 of the act of April 27, 1896, entitled "An act to protect persons and property from danger at grade crossings of one railroad over another," by conferring upon the Commission power to require protection where any two railroads, whether steam, interurban, electric or street, cross at rail grade by requiring such companies to install safety devices at such crossings. This statute heretofore did not include street railroads and gave the Commission no initiative, protection only being possible when one of the railroads intersecting petitioned for the intervention of the Commission. Drinking Intoxicants Aboard Trains.-Senate Bill No. 344 is a new act prohibiting the drinking of intoxicating beverages by any person while aboard any engine, car or train of cars except in the dining, cafe or other car with buffet or cafe attachment. Liability For Personal Injury-House Bill No. 673 is a new act "to qualify the liability of railroad companies for injuries to their employes," by providing that every railroad company shall be liable for all damages sustained by any of its employes. by reason of personal injury or death of such employe (1) when such injury or death is caused by a defect in any locomotive, engine, car, etc., and (2) while any such employe is engaged in operating, running, riding upon or switching any train, engine or cars and when such injury shall have been caused by the carelessness or negligence of any other employe, officer or agent of such company. This statute further provides that in case of contributory negligence on the part of an employe such negligence shall not be a bar to recovery where the same was slight and that of the employer was greater in comparison, but the damages shall be diminished by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to such employe. Elevated Railroads.-House Bill No. 899 supplements Section 3283 of the Revised Statutes relating to the powers of public officers to grant railroad companies the right to occupy public roads, streets, |