Monmouth weekly herald. [volume] (Freehold, N.J.) 1854-1860, 1855-09-26

ing to the brakes.
The whistle was repeatedly blown and
the employees steadily engaged watching
the track, on which cows had been seen
as the train was passing up, until the
cross-road where the collision took place
was reached; when Of a sudden pair OF
horses attached to a carriage, were drly-
en- at the rate Of eight or ten miles an
hour on the tracks SO near the train, as to
render it impossible to check its speed, or
in any way to prevent the melancholy
collision, the fatal results Of which are
already known to you, From the OUT
side line Of the railroad to the car which
struck the horses, is twenty-nlne feet,
which. at the speed of ten miles an hour,
would require less than two seconds to
pass. How impossible, therefore, is it to
devise means for the protection OF rail-
road trains from so sudden and unforeseen
instructions. The safety Of the trains
can best be secured by requiring all per-
sons, before crossing railroad, to stop
and ascertain whether the road is clear.
The Doth Of August was still day +;
there was but little wind, and the whis-
ties of both trains, which were blowing
as they saw each other, must have been
audible all along the road on which this
carriage was travelling from the river,
about mile to the crossing Besides
the repeated blowing of whistles, as
sworn to by some of our most respected
citizens, from the tine the up train first
passed the cross road until its return,
and the fatal collision occurred there
was at the crossing board, with the in
scription, Look out for the locomotive"
The entire truth of the foregoing mar
rative is, We think, fully, completely, and
satisfactorily proved, by the testimony of
fourteen reliable men, taken before the
Coroner's Jury; and it does appear to
your committee that in all particulars the
law Of the State and the regulations OF
the Company were fully complied with by
these agents and employees having charge
of the trains on the 29th Of August. The
Coroner's jury, it is true, say that the
engineer did not observe the rules and
the law respecting blowing the whistle.
But they must have rejected the positive
testimony of the following witnesses =
Samuel S. 'Stryker, of Trenton; James
Garwood, Dean Swift Read, Charles Al
|cott, Henry Henner, John r. Rodgers,
John Rodgers, Hugh Costill, of Burling-
ton; Allen Thompson, Lloyd Vandervecr.
Prescott Harvey, Israel Adams, Samuel
Scott, and Maurice Maxwell, all of whom,
except the three last, were entirely dis
interested, and unconnected with the Com
.pany, whose Responsibility and position
forbid the idea that they could have been
mistaken; to find that the whistle was not
blown, because other witnesses did not
hear it; they reject positive proof of the
fact, and assert that it did not take place,
because others were not cognizant Of its
occurrence; this certainly is most ex-
traordinary conclusion.
The proper lookout on the part Of the
brakemen, conductor, and engineer, was
observed the speed was usual and
lawful; the warning whistle was sounded !;
and all due diligence, vigilance, and pre-
caution, were studiously and serupulously
practiced Tie train had the right to the
track, aaaV The eHgineer ara braseafen
were on the lookout along the line Of the
track. Theretheir attention was required
and was given. they were not bound to
looketo the rightor to the left, at dis
lance from the track, nor is it compatible
with safety, where there are usually so
many cattle on or near the road, that
their attention should thus be diverted.
Their business is to concentrate their Wig
lance on the track But it is quite ev
ident that the scope of their vision, while
thus directed, would take in sufficient
space to cover all objects within danger
Gus proximity to the track, except in just
such case as the onenow under consid-
GRAFTON Of hcadlong, impetuous, reckless
velocity, precipitating an obstruction far
beyond the scope Of their vision, immedi-
ately in front of the train.
From such case of intruding obstruc-
ton, unless appraised. beforehand Of the
probability Of its occurrence, it seems
hardly conceivable how railroad trains,
with any degree Of vigilance, can protect
themselves. Besides, had the brakeman
observed the horses and carriage APP
preaching upon the cross road, is it prob
able he would have deemed it necessary
to warn the engineer? Could he have
deemed it possible that any sane man, in
possession Of the senses Of hearing and
seeing, did not see and hear the train and
would not have held up short of the rail
road track especially as the ground (asI
will be seen by reference to the accompa-
nying diagram) was clear and smooth
and nothing to prevent the driver even
after he got close to the railroad, pulling
his horses around to the right? "a
quick check of the right rein would have
thrown his horses parallel with the track"
and avoided all danger. On the contra
ry, had the brakeman seen the carriage
approaching, well knowing that the train
had the right to the track, it is not pre-
sumable that he would have considered
it necessary to give the engineer notice
Of its approach. If he had seen a COW or
horse or other brute animal controlled osgy
By has o1cn instinct, onror approaching the
track, he would have attempted to check,
or to accelerate the train. But if he saw
at distance those animals, apparently
under the power and control of hu7aqn rea-
SON, no danger was fairly to be appre-
hended. The law of the land, the die
tates Of common sense, aud the demand
of the travelling public, alike forbid the
necessity of checking the train for every
wagon that can be seen in the neighbor-
hood Of a track There are two hun
bred and thirty-seven crossings by streets.
public roads. lanes, and private CROSSINGS.