The Wyandot pioneer. (Upper Sandusky, Ohio) 1853-1868, 1857-01-29
T,sIE ALLIA NSE ACCIDENT.
LETTER FROM GEO. w. CAss, ESQ. PRES
IDENT OF THE L. FT w G.. r. r.

burgh Journal statement of Mr.. CAss,
President of the Pittsburgh, Ft. Wayne
and Chicago Railroad Company, concern.
ing the late accident at Alliance. 1t is
in reply to an article from Mr.. Durand
Superintendent of the Cleveland & Wells.
vile Road, in which the self-important
Mr.. Duraud attempted to throw the re.
sponsibility Of tie collision on the Con.
ductor of the z. 1T. w. q c. train, not.
withsta nding the Coroner's Jury excul
pated Mr.. Leavitt, and held Mr.. Durand' s
engineer as principal.
We annex part of Mr.. Cass' state
ment, which, it seems to us, presents the
matter in true light
"The Superintendent of the c. & P.
Road speaks of the crossing as the main
track of the G. & P. Road, which Mr.. Lea
witt had no right to use. Now the cross
ing is no more land perhaps not SO much
the main track of the c. & p. Road than
of the p. Ft. w. & c. Road. The Su-
perintendents make out their time tables
for their respective roads without consult
ing each other, and may perhaps have
made by time tables, two trains (of the
Is or Is crossing per day, J on the cross
ing at the same moment Of time. There
is, therefore, no time appropriated for Ell
ther company to use the crossing, but it
| is used to clear and well defined rules
rules too plain for child to misunder-
stand, and too salutary for a Solomon to
disregard. The Superintendent does not
now rely on the salutary and sufficient
rules existing, but undertakes to interpo-
late another, to wit: therule of doubt
Mr.. Leavitt, of course, recognizes the rule
in its proper place" In all cases of doubt
take the safe side, but denies that it
applies where there are clear and unmis-
takeable rules to govern, as was the case
in this instance. He had no doubt
I'that the c. & P. train would stop before
crossing why should he {? Was it an
uncertain rule? Was it less obligatory
than any other rule on the time table :?
Is it customary for trainmen to decide
what rules they shall observe, and what
not ? Are some rules flexible? No -
Mr.. Leavitt has been taught that the rules
for running trains are made absolute,
and no trainman has right to take it for
granted that salutary rule is going to
be violated. The trainman is bound to
believe that when the rules are INSULT
cient, the Superintendent will add other
rules. If the Superintendent does not,
then he neglects his duty. If the rules
governing the trains for the crossing at
Alliance are not sufficient, or so INSULT
cient, at such a very important crossing,
as to require the trainman to interpose
the rule of doubt for safety, then. in
my Judgment, the Superintendent has
made defective rules. But l believe the
rules of the p Ft w. & C. Co., all suf-
fcient The rule of doubt. as under
taken to be applied here, would stop eve
ry passenger train in the State of Ohio.
How dare Conductor run train loaded
with hundreds of precious souls at thirty
miles per hour, in the darkness cf mid
night, on sharp curves, and in the face
of opposing trains ? He justifes himself
in doing SO by the ru5es of the Company.
If not, he would take the rule of doubt
and lie BY till morning. The Superinten-
dent ventures to suggest that Mr.. Lea
Wits train was in place of safety, before
starting, and should have remained there.
Atter an accident, it would seem so !; but
| Mr.. Leayitt was not as wise before the ac-
cident as the Superintendent is after =
Because Mr.. Leavitt's train was run over,
| q hof Eo Tod c11
and people who SO reason are generally
known as belonging to the 'Itold-y you
so party. The Superintendent, by the
same course of reasoning, could readily
show, without the use of figures, that if
the eight victims of that accident had fol-
low ed the rule of doubt, and remained
at home, they would net have met the un-
timely and horrid dealh that befel them.
elf l understand the position assumed
| by the superintendent of the G & P.
road, tits to the effect that no Conductor
should put his train in position where it
might meet with an accident from another
running in violation of rules. Upon such
a view only of the duty Of Conductor,
can Mr.. Leavitt be censured and when
such rule is applied to the running OF
trains, only one train could be run on any
railroad, ard the rule might well be styled
the stand still rule" For the special
case that has arisen, a rule was made by
each Company deemed sufficient, if fol-
lowed, to prevent accident. The rule of
the P. Ft. w. d G. Company, certainly
was, and if that if that Of the G. & P.
was not, who is to blame? Following
and placing the utmost reliance on the OBJ
seryance of the rules, Mr.. Leavitt did not
apprehend danger--the engineer did not
apprehend danger--the train agent of the
P. Fl. w. & G. Company, who urged
Mr.. Leavitt to start his train, did not ap-
prehend danger--Mr. Ely, the agent of
the G. & P. road, who. when he notified
Mr.. Leayitt Of the approach of the train,
did not even hint that there was the slight
est danger. No single person. on that
night, either official or bystander, ex-
pressed any apprehension of danger
On the next morning, and some fifteen
hours otter the accident, the discovery
was first made that Mr.. Leavitt had braved
danger.
The perintendenden of the c. d
P. Road appeals to amy man of common
sense to know if Mr.. L. was justified, in
IL ~