New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1878-02-26
SOMEBODY TO BLAME, BUT NOBODY RE-
SPONSIBLf


The public will no doubt derive great salts
faction from the action of the cOrOner's jury,
or rather of the eight members of the jury VINO
have "signed report" in the case of the ac-
cIdent at Tariffyle, on the Connecticut west
ern Railroad few weeks since. This Is the
case, it will he remembered, where, by the fall
ing of bridge with a train of cars thereon,
| thirteen lives were lost and many persons
seriously injured. The first cry that went up,
almost before the shreks of the wounded had
ceased, was the old one that nowadays
comes sharp on the heels of fire or food,
collision or explosion. shipwreck on the
sea or disaster on the land" Whose fault
"was 1t p This cOroner's jury has been en-
gagged now ever since the accident took place
in hearing testimony of experts and others,
and endeavorng to reach some conclusion con-
corning it that would at least satisfy public
curiosity, if not answer the demand for a
scapegOat. Three or four different theories OF
the cause of the disaster were advanced one
of these was that the bridge was sound
and safe, but that some person or persons
unknown had tempered with it from motives
| of revenge against the company, or some
of its officers. This would, of course, have
exonerated the company from all blame in the
premises Another theory was that, from
some cause not clearly explained, one OF the
locomotives of which there were two at
| tachod TO the train, ran Oft the track, and III
that manner the timbers were broken by the
sudden blow and the structure demolished.
| Still another was that through weakness OF
| the iron or the timber in the original
| construction, or from their having become
weakened from exposure since the bridge
was built, 1t was unsOund and unsafe for the
transit of trains The last theory answered
the demand of the public, and placed the
| blame for the destruction Of life and manning
of passengers upon the officers of the road and
indirectly upon the State officials, whose duty
it was to examine the bridge and certify as to
| It's condition.
The jury did not agree upon verdict, but
the justice who acted as coroner accepted two
reports one of which, signed by eight OF the
twelve. is to the effect that the bridge, either
| from having been ilmsily constructed in the
! first instance OF weak and unsound materials.
or from having been Oversirained or weakened
from decay and exposure, was unsafe and uD-
! fit for the purpose for which 1t was con-
structed. 1t is said that the foreman of the
jury and the three others who declined to
sign this report are stockholders III
the road. The majority report, after finding
these facts, SAYS that the responsibility for
the disaster rests largely upon the directors
of the road and that they are deserving OF
ccnSure for allowing the use Of a bridge for
railroad purposes after its materials had be-
come defective to the point of danger and
,,r nrn y.I
the same in such manner as not to jcOpar-
die human life. The signcrs Of this report
add to their finding, by way of moral, that in
the construction and management of railways
ait is time to take n new departure that
Gin their construction the eternal principles of
"natIire's laws should not be violated, and that
ain their management all, from the highest
official to the lowest operator, should be held
"to a strict accountability" upon the direct
"ors especially" they say, "rcsts a weight of
responsibility which they cannot shake off;
"they have assumed duties they cannot shrk."
Al of which is, in some sense, true. No one
will deny the first of these propositions
that the eternal principles of natures
laws should not be violated in building
railroads or railroad bridges. But if
il Is assumed that among the responsibilities
assumed by directors of railroad corporations
is that of personally examining the bridges on
the roads a cooler consideration of the propO-
sltion will hardly be found to warrant the as
sumption. The majority report 1t will have to
be admitted goes just little too far in this
definition of the duties and responsibilities of
directors But there is another feature of
tins matter of responsibility, which has not
i'm or
the jury findings. The directors of this
road, as at present organized, have no respOn-
sibity whatever The manned and injured
have no redress for damages. They cannot
look To the directors or stockholders or any
body else for compensation. The company is
bankrupt. Under II special law passed by the
Connecticut Legislature the bondhOlders have
been empowered to organize and take possess
sion of the road. Pending such contamination,
il We are correctly informed, the road
has been placed under the management of
hoard of directors elected by such of the bond
holders as have given their consent TO the
proposed arrangement. The bondholders have
not all come into the arrangement yet, and the
consequence is the continuance of this al inter
i'm board. The stockholders are not RESPONSE
ble their stock having been eXtinguished the
bondhodcrs are not, they not having organized
under their charter and the railroad has not
dollars worth of property that can be at
tached, the whole being covered by the lien of
the bOndholders.
So that even if the verdict of this coronel's
iury-if it can be called verdict-were to be
received as final rs to the responsibility of the
company for the damage Occasioned by its
negligence, it could serve 10 practical pur-
pose, so far az the sufferers are concerned.
They have been MANNED and injured through