The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-06-15

agement or neglect The whole problem, then,
resolves itself into the simple question: How
can we prevent railroad managers mismanaging,
or neglecting their duties? It does appear to
MS q singular infatuation to seek an answer
to this inquiry in complicated systems
of ktyrannical supervision and State control.
Why will the good old rule which renders
every man liable for the consequences ofhis want
of care and prudence, not cover the case? If
private individual kills or wounds another by
negligence or carelessness, the law holds him re-
sponsible, and court of justice Furnishes him.
Why cannot railway managers be dealt with in
like manner! The only perceptlble difference
between the two cases is, that the negligence of
the latter is likely to be far more destructive in
its effects than that of the former. If John
Brown carelessly leaves on his window sill
heavy hammer which falls and kills passer-by,
John Brown is arrested, tried, convicted, and
punished for manslaughter; but if John Smith,
president of railway, omits to provide pro-
per signal at drawbridge on his line, whereby
train of cars is thrown into the water and forty
people are drowned, John Smith escapes with
scarcely few anathemas to disturb his equa-
nimity. Wherein lies the distinction between
the two?
All that the public requires is a law which
will impose on the directors and managers of
railway the same responsibility for their official
acts as every man bears for his private acts.
The infection of fine, payable to injured pas
sengers or the relatives ofpassengers killed, has
been generally advocated. We give in another
place, some very sensible suggestions from an
English paper on this subject fine would
come out of the funds Of the company. limo
cent shareholders would contribute an equal
share with negligent directors The individual
proportion of the latter would be small. These
are objections of weight What we want is not
SO much to punish companies. which are
bodies incapable of committing offence, as
to attach personal responsibility to indi-
vidual men, who are the real offenders This
end might possibly be attained by levy
ing the fines on the personal property
Of directors. But it is very questionable whe-
Their the surer and simpler mode Of overcoming
prisonment for fines. This plan would derive
peculiar advantage from its tending to dis
courage the delegation of important duties to
inexperienced subordinates. At present. the
directors of a railway frequently live in entire
ignorance of the mode in which it is managed
They trust to superintendent, who themselves
trust to engineers and others under them. By
enacting that the president and directors Of
railroad company shall not only be bound to
make full compensation out Of the company's
funds, for injuries received on their line, but
shall be liable to few months imprisonment
when clear case Of negligence or mismanage-
ment shall be made out against them, we shall
take the most effective step for securing the
safety Of travellers.
The commissioners under the Connecticut
act would obviously be invested with powers
that would conflict both with sound policy Of
railway encouragement and natural principles
ofjustice. It is contrary to the spirit Of our
institutions to suffer the State to control the
business Of any individual or private associa-
wrong doors. Under the Connecticut act the
commissioners would be the real directors Of
all the railways in the State
At the same time we should be glad to see
the establishment of an Office of railway in
spection in this State. An inspector might be
appointed to examine and report at periodical
intervals on the lines bridges, culverts. cars,
axles, and other property of every company
in operation. A copy Of a report should be
furnished to the directors Of each company;
and it would be for them to effect the repairs
he suggested, or not, as they thought fit. If
any accident occurred through neglect of his
warning, the jury empannelled to assess the da-
images, and the judge upon whom it would de-
volve to award the penalty of Imprisonment,
would, of course give due consideration to this
aggravating circumstance