25 S.Ct. 158

Supreme Court of the United States
美国最高法院

W. O. JOHNSON, Petitioner
W. O. 约翰逊，请愿人,

v.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY.
南太平洋公司。

Decided December 19, 1904
决定于 1904 年 12 月 19 日

Opinion
意见

Statement by Mr. Chief Justice Fuller:
首席法官富勒：

Johnson brought this action in the district court of the first judicial district of Utah against the Southern Pacific Company to recover damages for injuries received while employed by that company as a brakeman. The case was removed to the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah by defendant on the ground of diversity of citizenship.
约翰逊在犹他州第一司法区的地区法院对南太平洋公司提起诉讼，要求赔偿他在该公司担任刹车员期间所受的伤害。该案件因被告的公民身份多样性而移至Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Utah.

The facts were briefly these: August 5, 1900, Johnson was acting as head brakeman on a freight train of the Southern Pacific Company, which was making its regular trip between San Francisco, California, and Ogden, Utah. On reaching the town of Promontory, Utah, Johnson was directed to uncouple the engine from the train and couple it to a dining car, belonging to the company, which was standing on a side track, for the purpose of turning the car around preparatory to its being picked up and put on the next westbound passenger train. The engine and the dining car were equipped, respectively, with the Janney coupler and the Miller hook, so called, which would not couple together automatically by impact, and it was, therefore, necessary for Johnson, and he was ordered, to go between the engine and the dining car, to accomplish the coupling. In so doing Johnson's hand was caught between the engine bumper and the dining car bumper, and crushed, which necessitated amputation of the hand above the wrist.
事实简要如下：1900 年 8 月 5 日，约翰逊在南太平洋公司的货运列车上担任首席刹车员，该列车在加利福尼亚州旧金山和犹他州奥格登之间进行定期运行。当列车到达犹他州的普罗蒙托里镇时，约翰逊被指示将机车与列车分开，并将其连接到停在侧轨上的公司餐车，以便将餐车调头，为其被接走并放置在下一班西行客运列车上做准备。机车和餐车分别配备了所谓的詹尼耶联结器和米勒钩，这两者无法通过冲击自动连接，因此约翰逊被命令在机车和餐车之间进行连接。在此过程中，约翰逊的手被夹在机车的缓冲器和餐车的缓冲器之间，导致手部受伤， necessitating above the wrist.

On the trial of the case, defendant, after plaintiff had rested, moved the court to instruct the jury to find in its favor, which motion was granted, and the jury found a verdict accordingly, on which judgment was entered. Plaintiff carried the case to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, and the judgment was affirmed. 54 C. C. A. 508, 117 Fed. 462
在案件审理中，被告在原告休庭后，向法庭申请指示陪审团作出有利于其的裁决，该申请获得批准，陪审团因此作出了相应的裁决，并据此作出了判决。原告将案件上诉至Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit，判决被维持。54 C. C. A. 508, 117 Fed. 462.

*13 Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:
*13首席大法官富勒发表了法院的意见：

This case was brought here on certiorari, and also on writ of error, and will be determined on the merits, without discussing the question of jurisdiction as between **160 the one writ and the other. Pullman's Palace Car Co. v. Central Transp. Co. 171 U. S. 138, 145, 43 L.Ed. 108, 111, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 808
本案是通过复审申请提起的，同时也基于错误令，将根据实质进行裁决，而不讨论两种令状之间的管辖权问题。**160 普尔曼宫车公司诉中央运输公司 171 美国 138, 145, 43 L.Ed. 108, 111,18 最高法院报告 808.

The plaintiff claimed that he was relieved of assumption of risk under common-law rules by the act of Congress of March 2, 1893 (27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3174), entitled ‘An Act to Promote the Safety of Employees and Travelers upon Railroads by Compelling Common Carriers Engaged in Interstate Commerce to Equip their Cars with Automatic Couplers and Continuous Brakes and their Locomotives with Driving-Wheel Brakes, and for Other Purposes.’
原告声称，根据 1893 年 3 月 2 日的国会法案（27 Stat. at L. 531, chap. 196, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3174），他被解除了承担风险的责任，该法案标题为“促进铁路员工和旅客安全的法案，强制从事州际商业的公共承运人装备其车辆以自动联结器和连续制动器，并为其机车装备驱动轮制动器，以及其他目的。”

The issues involved questions deemed of such general importance that the government was permitted to file brief and be heard at the bar.
涉及的问题被认为具有如此普遍的重要性，以至于政府被允许提交简报并在法庭上发言。

The act of 1893 provided:
1893 年的法案规定：

‘That from and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate traffic not equipped with a power driving wheel brake and appliances for operating the train-brake system. . . .
“自一千八百九十八年一月一日起，任何从事州际铁路运输的公共承运人不得在其线路上使用未配备动力驱动轮制动器和列车制动系统操作设备的机车引擎来移动州际货物。”……

‘Sec. 2. That on and after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, it shall be unlawful for any such common carrier to haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.’
‘第二条。自一千八百九十八年一月一日起，任何此类公共承运人不得运输或允许运输或在其线路上使用任何未配备自动碰撞联结器的用于跨州运输的车辆，并且在不需要人员走到车厢之间的情况下可以解联。

‘Sec. 6. That any such common carrier using any locomotive engine, running any train, or hauling or permitting to be hauled or used on its line any car in violation of any of the *14 provisions of this act, shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred dollars for each and every such violation, to be recovered in a suit or suits to be brought by the United States District Attorney in the district court of the United States having jurisdiction in the locality where such violation shall have been committed, and it shall be the duty of such district attorney to bring such suits upon duly verified information being lodged with him of such violation having occurred.’
“第 6 条。任何使用机车、运行列车或在其线路上运输或允许运输任何违反本法的车辆的公共承运人，*14 每次违反将被处以一百美元的罚款，罚款可由美国地区检察官在具有管辖权的美国地区法院提起诉讼追讨，且该地区检察官有责任在收到经过正式验证的关于该违反行为的信息后提起诉讼。”

‘Sec. 8. That any employee of any such common carrier who may be injured by any locomotive, car, or train in use contrary to the provision of this act shall not be deemed thereby to have assumed the risk thereby occasioned, although continuing in the employment of such carrier after the unlawful use of such locomotive, car, or train had been brought to his knowledge.’
第 8 条。任何此类公共承运人的员工，如果因违反本法规定而使用的机车、车辆或列车受到伤害，则不应因此被视为已承担由此产生的风险，即使在该机车、车辆或列车的非法使用已被告知后仍继续在该承运人处工作。

The Circuit Court of appeals held, in substance, Sanborn, J., delivering the opinion and Lochren, J., concurring, that the locomotive and car were both equipped as required by the act, as the one had a power driving-wheel brake and the other a coupler; that § 2 did not apply to locomotives; that at the time of the accident the dining car was not ‘used in moving interstate traffic;’ and, moreover, that the locomotive, as well as the dining car, was furnished with an automatic coupler, so that each was equipped as the statute required if § 2 applied to both. Thayer, J., concurred in the judgment on the latter ground, but was of opinion that locomotives were included by the words ‘any car’ in the 2d section, and that the dining car was being ‘used in moving interstate traffic.’
该 Circuit Court of appeals 认为，Sanborn, J. 发表意见， Lochren, J. 赞同，认为机车和车厢均按照法律要求配备，因为一方有动力驱动轮制动器，另一方有联结器； § 2 不适用于机车；在事故发生时，餐车并未“用于移动州际交通”；而且，机车和餐车均配备了自动联结器，因此如果 § 2 适用于两者，则每个都按照法规要求配备。Thayer, J. 在后者的基础上同意判决，但认为机车被“任何车”一词包含在第二节中，并且餐车正在“用于移动州际交通”。

We are unable to accept these conclusions, notwithstanding the able opinion of the majority, as they appear to us to be inconsistent with the plain intention of Congress, to defeat the object of the legislation, and to be arrived at by an inadmissible narrowness of construction.
我们无法接受这些结论，尽管大多数人的意见很有能力，因为它们在我们看来与国会的明确意图不一致，违背了立法的目的，并且是通过不可接受的狭隘解释得出的。

The intention of Congress, declared in the preamble and in *15 §§ 1 and 2 of the act, was ‘to promote the safety of employees and travelers upon railroads by compelling common carriers engaged in interstate commerce to equip their cars with automatic couplers and continuous brakes and their locomotives with driving-wheel brakes,’ those brakes to be accompanied with ‘appliances for operating the train brake system;’ and every car to be ‘equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars,’ whereby the danger and risk consequent on the existing system was averted as far as possible.
国会的意图，在序言和*15§§ 1 和 2 的法案中声明，是“通过强制从事州际商业的公共承运人为其车辆配备自动联结器和连续制动器，以及为其机车配备驱动轮制动器，来促进员工和旅行者在铁路上的安全”，这些制动器应配备“用于操作列车制动系统的设备；并且每辆车应配备‘通过冲击自动联结的联结器，并且可以在不需要人员走到车厢之间的情况下解开’”，从而尽可能避免现有系统带来的危险和风险。

The present case is that of an injured employee, and involves the application of the act in respect of automatic couplers, the preliminary question being whether locomotives are required to be equipped with such couplers. And it is not to be successfully denied that they are so required if the words ‘any car’ of the 2nd section were intended to embrace, and do embrace, locomotives. But it is said that this cannot be so because locomotives were elsewhere, in terms, required to be equipped with power driving-wheel brakes, and that the rule that the expression of one thing excludes another applies. That, however, **161 is a question of intention, and as there was special reason for requiring locomotives to be equipped with power driving wheel brakes, if it were also necessary that locomotives should be equipped with automatic couplers, and the word ‘car’ would cover locomotives, then the intention to limit the equipment of locomotives to power driving-wheel brakes, because they were separately mentioned, could not be imputed. Now it was as necessary for the safety of employees in coupling and uncoupling that locomotives should be equipped with automatic couplers as it was that freight and passenger and dining cars should be; perhaps more so, as Judge Thayer suggests, ‘since engines have occasion to make couplings more frequently.’
本案涉及一名受伤员工，涉及自动联结器的法律适用，初步问题是机车是否需要配备此类联结器。不可否认的是，如果第二条的“任何车”一词旨在涵盖并确实涵盖机车，那么它们确实是需要的。但有人说这不可能，因为机车在其他条款中被要求配备动力驱动轮制动器，并且表达一种事物的规则排除另一种事物。然而，这 **161 是一个意图的问题，考虑到有特别理由要求机车配备动力驱动轮制动器，如果机车也需要配备自动联结器，并且“车”一词可以涵盖机车，那么由于它们被单独提及，限制机车仅配备动力驱动轮制动器的意图 是无法归责的。 现在，为了员工在连接和断开时的安全，机车必须配备自动联结器，这一点与货车、客车和餐车同样重要；也许更为重要，正如泰耶法官所建议的，“因为机车需要更频繁地进行联结。”

And manifestly the word ‘car’ was used in its generic sense. There is nothing to indicate that any particular kind *16 of car was meant. Tested by context, subject matter, and object, ‘any car’ meant all kinds of cars running on the rails, including locomotives. And this view is supported by the dictionary definitions and by many judicial decisions, some of them having been rendered in construction of this act. Winkler v. Philadelphia r. r. Co. 4 Penn. (Del.) 387, 53 Atl. 90; Fleming v. Southern R. Co. 131 N.C. 476, 42 S.E. 905;East St. Louis Connecting R. Co. v. O'Hara, 150 Ill. 580, 37 N.E. 917; Kansas City, M. & B. R. Co. v. Crocker, 95 Ala. 412, 11 So. 262; Thomas v. Georgia R. & Bkg. Co. 38 Ga. 222; New York v. Third Ave. R. Co. 117 N.Y. 404, 22 N.E. 755; Benson v. Chicago, St. P. M. & O. R. Co. 75 Minn. 163, 74 Am. St. Rep. 444, 77 N.W. 798
显然，“车”这个词是以其通用意义使用的。没有任何迹象表明指的是某种特定类型的*16车。根据上下文、主题和对象进行测试，“任何车”指的是所有在轨道上运行的各种类型的车，包括机车。这一观点得到了词典定义和许多司法判决的支持，其中一些是在对该法案的解释中作出的。Winkler诉费城铁路公司 4 Penn. (Del.) 387, 53 Atl. 90;Fleming 诉 南方铁路公司 131 N.C. 476, 42 S.E. 905东圣路易斯连接铁路公司 诉 O'Hara, 150 Ill. 580, 37 N.E. 917;堪萨斯城、M. & B. 铁路公司 诉 Crocker, 95 Ala. 412, 11 So. 262;Thomas 诉 乔治亚铁路与银行公司 38 Ga. 222;纽约 v. 第三大道铁路公司 117 N.Y. 404, 22 N.E. 755;本森 v. 芝加哥、圣保罗、明尼阿波利斯和奥马哈铁路公司 75 明尼苏达州 163, 74 美国州报告 444, 77 N.W.798.

The result is that if the locomotive in question was not equipped with automatic couplers, the company failed to comply with the provisions of the act. It appears, however, that this locomotive was in fact equipped with automatic couplers, as well as the dining car; but that the couplers on each, which were of different types, would not couple with each other automatically, by impact, so as to render it unnecessary for men to go between the cars to couple and uncouple.
结果是，如果相关机车没有配备自动联结器，公司就未能遵守该法案的规定。然而，似乎这台机车实际上是配备了自动联结器的，餐车也是如此；但两者的联结器类型不同，无法通过冲击自动联结，因此需要人们在车厢之间进行联结和解联。

Nevertheless, the Circuit Court of Appeals was of opinion that it would be an unwarrantable extension of the terms of the law to hold that where the couplers would couple automatically with couplers of their own kind, the couplers must so couple with couplers of different kinds. But we think that what the act plainly forbade was the use of cars which could not be coupled together automatically by impact, by means of the couplers actually used on the cars to be coupled. The object was to protect the lives and limbs of railroad employees by rendering it unnecessary for a man operating the couplers to go between the ends of the cars; and that object would be defeated, not necessarily by the use of automatic couplers of different kinds, but if those different kinds would not automatically couple with each other. The point was that the *17 railroad companies should be compelled, respectively, to adopt devices, whatever they were, which would act so far uniformly as to eliminate the danger consequent on men going between the cars.
然而，Circuit Court of Appeals 认为，认为如果耦合器能够与同类耦合器自动耦合，那么耦合器必须与不同类型的耦合器自动耦合，这将是对法律条款的不当扩展。但我们认为，该法案明确禁止的是使用那些无法通过实际用于耦合的耦合器自动耦合的车辆。其目的是通过使操作耦合器的人不必在车厢之间走动来保护铁路员工的生命和肢体；而这一目标的实现并不一定会因使用不同类型的自动耦合器而受到影响，而是如果这些不同类型的耦合器无法自动相互耦合。关键在于，*17铁路公司应被迫分别采用某种设备，无论是什么，以便在一定程度上统一运作，从而消除因人员在车厢之间走动而带来的危险。

If the language used were open to construction, we are constrained to say that the construction put upon the act by the Circuit Court of Apeals was altogether too narrow. This strictness was thought to be required because the common-law rule as to the assumption of risk was changed by the act, and because the act was penal.
如果使用的语言可以进行解释，我们不得不说，Circuit Court of Apeals 对该法案的解释实在是过于狭隘。这种严格性被认为是必要的，因为该法案改变了关于风险承担的普通法规则，并且该法案是刑事性质的。

The dogma as to the strict construction of statutes in derogation of the common law only amounts to the recognition of a presumption against an intention to change existing law; and as there is no doubt of that intention here, the extent of the application of the change demands at least no more rigorous construction than would be applied to penal laws. And, as Chief Justice Parker remarked, conceding that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be construed strictly, ‘They are also to be construed sensibly, and with a view to the object aimed at by the legislature.’ Gibson v. Jenney, 15 Mass. 205
关于对削弱普通法的法规进行严格解释的教条，仅仅是承认了一种反对改变现有法律意图的推定；而且在这里毫无疑问存在这种意图，因此变更的适用范围至少不需要比适用于刑法的严格解释更严格。正如首席法官帕克所言，承认削弱普通法的法规应当严格解释，“它们也应当合理解释，并考虑立法机关所追求的目标。” 吉布森 诉 詹尼，15 马萨诸塞州 205.

The primary object of the act was to promote the public welfare by securing the safety of employees and travelers; and it was in that aspect remedial; while for violations a penalty of $100, recoverable in a civil action, was provided for, and in that aspect it was penal. But the design to give relief was more dominant than to inflict punishment, and the act might well be held to fall within the rule applicable to statutes to prevent fraud upon the revenue, and for the collection of customs,—that rule not requiring absolute strictness of construction. Taylor v. United States, 3 How. 197, 11 L.Ed. 559; United States v. Stowell, 133 U.S. 1, 12, 33 L.Ed. 555, 558, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244, and cases cited. And see Farmers' m. n/at. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196, 199; Gray v. Bennett, 3 Met. 529
该法案的主要目的是通过确保员工和旅行者的安全来促进公共福利；从这个方面来看，它是补救性的；而对于违反行为则规定了 100 美元的罚款，可以通过民事诉讼追讨，从这个方面来看它是惩罚性的。但给予救济的设计比施加惩罚更为重要，因此该法案可以被认为符合适用于防止对税收欺诈和征收关税的法规的规则——该规则并不要求绝对严格的解释。泰勒诉美国, 3 How. 197, 11 L.Ed. 559;美国诉斯托威尔, 133 U.S. 1, 12, 33 L.Ed. 555, 558,10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 244, 以及引用的案例。并参见 农民的国家银行诉迪林, 91 U.S. 29, 35, 23 L.Ed. 196, 199;灰色 v. 贝内特, 3 Met.529.

Moreover, it is settled that ‘though penal laws are to be construed strictly, yet the intention of the legislature must *18 govern in the construction of penal as well as other statutes; and they are not to be construed so strictly as to defeat the obvious **162 intention of the legislature.’ United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 33 L.Ed. 1080, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. In that case we cited and quoted from United States v. Winn, 3 Sumn. 209, Fed. Cas No. 16,740, in which Mr. Justice Story, referring to the rule that penal statutes are to be construed strictly, said:
此外，已确定“尽管刑法应严格解释，但立法者的意图必须*18 在刑法和其他法规的解释中占主导地位；并且它们不应被解释得如此严格，以至于破坏立法者明显的**162 意图。” 美国诉拉彻，134 U.S. 624, 33 L.Ed. 1080,10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625. 在该案中，我们引用了并引用了美国诉温恩，3 Sumn. 209, Fed. Cas No. 16,740, 在其中，斯托里法官提到刑法应严格解释的规则时说：

‘I agree to that rule in its true and sober sense; and that is, that penal statutes are not to be enlarged by implication, or extended to cases not obviously within their words and purport. But where the words are general, and include various classes of persons, I know of no authority which would justify the court in restricting them to one class, or in giving them the narrowest interpretation, where the mischief to be redressed by the statute is equally applicable to all of them. And where a word is used in a statute which has various known significations, I know of no rule that requires the court to adopt one in preference to another, simply because it is more restrained, if the objects of the statute equally apply to the largest and broadest sense of the word. In short, it appears to me that the proper course in all these cases is to search out and follow the true intent of the legislature, and to adopt that sense of the words which harmonizes best with the context, and promotes in the fullest manner the apparent policy and objects of the legislature.’
“我同意这一规则的真实和严肃的意义；即，刑法不应通过暗示扩大或延伸到那些显然不在其字面和意图范围内的案件。但是，当文字是一般性的，并包括各种类别的人时，我不知道有什么权威可以证明法院限制它们到一个类别，或给予它们最狭义的解释，因为法律所要纠正的害处同样适用于所有人。而当法律中使用的一个词有多种已知的含义时，我不知道有什么规则要求法院优先采用一个而不是另一个，仅仅因为它更为受限，如果法律的对象同样适用于该词的最大和最广泛的意义。总之，在所有这些情况下，适当的做法是寻找并遵循立法者的真实意图，并采用与上下文最和谐、并以最充分的方式促进立法者明显政策和目标的词义。”

Tested by these principles, we think the view of the Circuit Court of Appeals, which limits the 2nd section to merely providing automatic couplers, does not give due effect to the words ‘coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the cars,’ and cannot be sustained.
根据这些原则进行测试，我们认为Circuit Court of Appeals 的观点，限制第二n条仅仅提供自动联结器，并未充分体现“通过冲击自动联结，并且可以在不需要人进入车厢的情况下解联”的字眼，无法成立。

We dismiss, as without merit, the suggestion which has been made, that the words ‘without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars,’ which are the test of compliance with § 2, apply only to the act of uncoupling. The phrase literally covers both coupling and uncoupling; and if *19 read, as it should be, with a comma after the word ‘uncoupled,’ this becomes entirely clear. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. v. Voelker, 129 Fed. 522; United States v. Lacher, 134 U.S. 624, 33 L.Ed. 1080, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 625
我们驳回了这一建议，认为其没有依据，即“无需人们在车厢之间走动”的字眼，仅适用于解耦的行为。这个短语字面上涵盖了耦合和解耦；如果 *19 读作应有的，在“解耦”一词后加上逗号，这一点就变得完全清楚。芝加哥、明尼苏达和太平洋铁路公司诉沃尔克，129 联邦 522;美国诉拉彻，134 美国 624，33 L.Ed. 1080,10 最高法院报告 625.

The risk in coupling and uncoupling was the evil sought to be remedied, and that risk was to be obviated by the use of couplers actually coupling automatically. True, no particular design was required, but, whatever the devices used, they were to be effectively interchangeable. Congress was not paltering in a double sense. And its intention is found ‘in the language actually used, interpreted according to its fair and obvious meaning.’ United States v. Harris, 177 U.S. 309, 44 L.Ed. 782, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 609
耦合和解耦的风险是寻求解决的恶，而这种风险将通过使用实际自动耦合的耦合器来消除。确实，没有特定的设计要求，但无论使用何种装置，它们都应有效地可互换。国会并没有在双重意义上含糊其辞。其意图体现在“实际使用的语言中，按照其公正和明显的含义进行解释。”美国 v. 哈里斯，177 美国 309, 44 L.Ed. 782,20 最高法院报告 609.

That this was the scope of the statute is confirmed by the circumstances surrounding its enactment, as exhibited in public documents to which we are at liberty to refer. Binns v. United States, 194 U.S. 486, 495, 48 L.Ed. 1087, 1091, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 816; Church of Holy Trinity v. United States, 143 U.S. 457, 463, 36 L.Ed. 226, 229, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511
该法令的范围由其颁布时的情况确认，这些情况在我们可以自由引用的公共文件中有所体现。宾斯诉美国，194 U.S. 486, 495, 48 L.Ed. 1087, 1091,24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 816;圣三位一体教堂诉美国，143 U.S. 457, 463, 36 L.Ed. 226, 229,12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 511.

President Harrison, in his annual messages of 1889, 1890, 1891, and 1892, earnestly urged upon Congress the necessity of legislation to obviate and reduce the loss of life and the injuries due to the prevailing method of coupling and braking. In his first message he said: ‘It is competent, I think, for Congress to require uniformity in the construction of cars used in interstate commerce, and the use of improved safety appliances upon such trains. Time will be necessary to make the needed changes, but an earnest and intelligent beginning should be made at once. It is a reproach to our civilization that any class of American workmen should, in the pursuit of a necessary and useful vocation, be subjected to a peril of life and limb as great as that of a soldier in time of war.’
哈里森总统在 1889 年、1890 年、1891 年和 1892 年的年度报告中，认真地向国会强调了立法的必要性，以消除和减少因现行的联结和制动方法造成的生命损失和伤害。在他的第一份报告中，他说：“我认为，国会有权要求在州际商业中使用的车辆的构造保持统一，并在此类列车上使用改进的安全设备。进行必要的改变需要时间，但应立即开始一个认真而明智的开端。我们的文明令人羞愧的是，任何一类美国工人在追求必要和有用的职业时，竟要面临与战时士兵一样大的生命和肢体危险。”

And he reiterated his recommendation in succeeding messages, saying in that for 1892: ‘Statistics furnished by the Interstate Commerce Commission show that during the year ending June 30, 1891, there were forty-seven different styles of car couplers reported to be in use, and that during the same period there was 2,660 employees killed and 26,140 injured. *20 Nearly 16 per cent of the deaths occurred in the coupling and uncoupling of cars, and over 36 per cent of the injuries had the same origin.’
他在后续的信息中重申了他的建议，在 1892 年的信息中说：“由州际商业委员会提供的统计数据显示，在截至 1891 年 6 月 30 日的一年中，报告使用的车钩有四十七种不同的样式，并且在同一时期内，有 2,660 名员工遇难，26,140 人受伤。*20 几乎 16%的死亡发生在列车的连接和断开过程中，超过 36%的伤害也源于此。”

The Senate report of the first session of the Fifty-second Congress (No. 1049) and the House report of the same session (No. 1678) set out the numerous and increasing casualties due to coupling, the demand for protection, and the necessity of automatic couplers, coupling interchangeably. The difficulties in the case were fully expounded and the result reached to require an automatic coupling by impact so as to render it unnecessary for men to go between the cars; while no particular device or type was adopted, the railroad companies being left free to work out the details for themselves, ample time being given for that purpose. The law gave five years, and that was enlarged, by the Interstate Commerce Commission, as authorized by law, **163 two years, and subsequently seven months, making seven years and seven months in all.
第五十二届国会第一届会议的参议院报告（第 1049 号）和众议院同一会议的报告（第 1678 号）列出了由于联结造成的众多和日益增加的伤亡情况，保护的需求，以及自动 联结器的必要性，交替联结。案件中的困难得到了充分阐述，结果要求通过冲击实现自动联结，以便不再需要人们在车厢之间走动；虽然没有采用特定的装置或类型，但铁路公司被允许自行解决细节，为此提供了充足的时间。法律规定了五年，并由州际商业委员会根据法律授权延长了两年，随后又增加了七个月，总共为七年七个月。**163

The diligence of counsel has called our attention to changes made in the bill in the course of its passage, and to the debates in the Senate on the report of its committee. 24 Cong. Rec., pt. 2, pp. 1246, 1273 et seq. These demonstrate that the difficulty as to interchangeability was fully in the mind of Congress, and was assumed to be met by the language which was used. The essential degree of uniformity was secured by providing that the couplings must couple automatically by impact without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.
律师的勤勉引起了我们对法案在通过过程中所做更改的关注，以及对参议院关于其委员会报告的辩论的关注。24 Cong. Rec., pt. 2, pp. 1246, 1273 及以下。这些表明，关于可互换性的困难在国会心中是完全存在的，并且假定通过所使用的语言得以解决。通过规定耦合必须通过冲击自动耦合，而不需要人们在车厢之间走动，从而确保了基本的统一程度。

In the present case the couplings would not work together; Johnson was obliged to go between the cars; and the law was not complied with.
在本案中，联结器无法正常工作；约翰逊不得不在车厢之间走动；而法律并未得到遵守。

March 2, 1903 (32 Stat. at L. 943, chap. 970), an act in amendment of the act of 1893 was approved, which provided, among other things, that the provisions and requirements of the former act ‘shall be held to apply to common carriers by railroads in the territories and the district of Columbia, and shall apply in all cases, whether or not the couplers brought together are of the *21 same kind, make, or type;’ and ‘shall be held to apply to all trains, locomotives, tenders, cars, and similar vehicles used on any railroad engaged in interstate commerce.’
1903 年 3 月 2 日（第 32 卷法典 943 条，第 970 章），一项修正 1893 年法案的法案获得批准，其中规定，前法案的条款和要求“应适用于领土和哥伦比亚特区的铁路普通承运人，并应适用于所有情况，无论连接器是否为*21相同种类、品牌或类型；”并且“应适用于所有列车、机车、车厢和在任何从事州际商业的铁路上使用的类似车辆。”

This act was to take effect September 1st, 1903, and nothing in it was to be held or construed to relieve any common carrier ‘from any of the provisions, powers, duties, liabilities, or requirements' of the act of 1893, all of which should apply except as specifically amended.
该法案将于 1903 年 9 月 1 日生效，法案中的任何内容不得被视为或解释为解除任何普通承运人“对 1893 年法案的任何条款、权力、职责、责任或要求”的责任，所有这些条款应适用，除非有具体修订。

As we have no doubt of the meaning of the prior law, the subsequent legislation cannot be regarded as intended to operate to destroy it. Indeed, the latter act is affirmative and declaratory; and, in effect, only construed and applied the former act. bailey v. Clark, 21 Wall. 284, 22 L.Ed. 651; United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556, 11 L.Ed. 724; Cope v. Cope, 137 U.S. 682, 34 L.Ed. 832, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222; Wetmore v. Markoe, 196 U.S. 68, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172, 49 L.Ed. 390. This legislative recognition of the scope of the prior law fortifies, and does not weaken, the conclusion at which we have arrived.
由于我们对先前法律的含义毫无疑问，后续立法不能被视为旨在破坏它。实际上，后者的行为是肯定和声明性的；实际上，仅仅是对前者的解释和应用。贝利诉克拉克，21 Wall. 284, 22 L.Ed. 651;美国诉弗里曼，3 How. 556, 11 L.Ed. 724;科普诉科普，137 U.S. 682, 34 L.Ed. 832,11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 222;韦特莫尔诉马尔科，196 U.S. 68,25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 172,49 L.Ed. 390.这项立法对先前法律范围的认可加强了我们所达成的结论，而不是削弱它。

Another ground on which the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals was rested remains to be noticed. That court held by a majority that, as the dining car was empty and had not actually entered upon its trip, it was not used in moving interstate traffic, and hence was not within the act. The dining car had been constantly used for several years to furnish meals to passengers between San Francisco and Ogden, and for no other purpose. On the day of the accident the eastbound train was so late that it was found that the car could not reach Ogden in time to return on the next westbound train according to intention, and it was therefore dropped off at Promontory, to be picked up by that train as it came along that evening.
另一个决定Circuit Court of Appeals 的依据尚待注意。该法院以多数意见认为，由于餐车是空的，并且实际上没有开始其行程，因此它并未用于跨州交通，因此不在该法案范围内。该餐车在过去几年中一直用于为旧金山和奥格登之间的乘客提供餐食，且没有其他用途。在事故发生当天，东行列车晚点严重，发现该车无法按计划及时到达奥格登以便在下一班西行列车上返回，因此在普罗蒙托里被卸下，待当晚该列车经过时再接走。

The presumption is that it was stocked for the return; and as it was not a new car, or a car just from the repair shop, on its way to its field of labor, it was not ‘an empty,’ as that term is sometimes used. Besides, whether cars are empty or loaded, the danger to employees is practically the same, and we agree with the observation of District Judge Shiras, in Voelker v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co. 116 Fed. 867, that ‘it cannot *22 be true that on the eastern trip the provisions of the act of Congress would be binding upon the company, because the cars were loaded, but would not be binding upon the return trip, because the cars are empty.’
假设它是为了返回而装载的；而且由于这不是一辆新车，也不是刚从修理厂出来的车，正前往其工作领域，因此它并不是“空车”，这个术语有时是这样使用的。此外，无论车辆是空的还是装载的，对员工的危险几乎是一样的，我们同意地区法官 Shiras 在Voelker诉芝加哥、明尼苏达和太平洋铁路公司116 联邦 867 号的观察，即“在东行的旅程中，国会法案的条款对公司是有约束力的，因为车辆是装载的，但在返回旅程中则没有约束力，因为车辆是空的，这种说法是不可能成立的。”

Counsel urges that the character of the dining car at the time and place of the injury was local only, and could not be changed until the car was actually engaged in interstate movement, or being put into a train for such use, and Coe v. Errol, 116 U.S. 517, 29 L.Ed. 715, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475, is cited as supporting that contention. In Coe v. Errol it was held that certain logs cut in New Hampshire, and hauled to a river in order that they might be transported to Maine, were subject to taxation in the former state before transportation had begun.
律师主张，在受伤时和地点，餐车的性质仅为地方性质，直到该车实际参与州际运输或被放入列车用于此目的之前，性质无法改变，Coe v. Errol，116 U.S. 517，29 L.Ed. 715，6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 475，被引用以支持该主张。在Coe v. Errol一案中，裁定在新罕布什尔州砍伐的某些木材，在运输到缅因州之前，需在前一个州征税。

The distinction between merchandise which may become an article of interstate commerce, or may not, and an instrument regularly used in moving interstate commerce, which has stopped temporarily in making its trip between two points in different states, renders this and like cases inapplicable.
在可能成为州际商业商品与在州际商业中定期使用的工具之间的区别，使得此类案件不适用，这些工具在不同州之间的旅行中暂时停留。

Confessedly this dining car was under the control of Congress while in the act of making its interstate journey, and in our judgment it was equally so when waiting for the train to be made up for the next trip. It was being regularly used in the movement of interstate traffic, and so within the law.
坦白说，这辆餐车在进行州际旅行时受国会的控制，我们认为在等待列车准备好进行下一次旅行时也是如此。它被定期用于州际交通的运输，因此符合相关法律。

Finally, it is argued that, Johnson was guilty of such contributory negligence as to defeat recovery, and that, therefore, the judgment should be affirmed. But the Circuit Court of Appeals did not consider this question, nor apparently did the Circuit Court, and we do not feel constrained **164 to inquire whether it could have been open under § 8, or, if so, whether it should have been left to the jury, under proper instructions.
最后，有人认为，约翰逊的过失足以导致赔偿请求被驳回，因此，判决应予以维持。但是，Circuit Court of Appeals 并没有考虑这个问题，显然也没有考虑过 Circuit Court，我们也不觉得有必要 **164 探讨在 § 8 下是否可以提出这个问题，或者如果可以的话，是否应该在适当的指导下交给陪审团。

The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals is reversed; the judgment of the Circuit Court is also reversed, and the cause remanded to that court with instructions to set aside the verdict, and award a new trial.
巡回上诉法院的判决被推翻；巡回法院的判决也被推翻，并将案件发回该法院，指示其撤销陪审的裁决，并裁定进行新审判。