Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1880-08-25
lancaster fntelllgerlcer.
WEDNESDAY EVENING. AUG. as, 1890
Where the Responsibility Rests.


The verdict of the coroner's jury in
the Nays Landing railroad disaster is
justly subject to adverse criticism be-
cause of its incomplete and halting char
acter. It finds that the accident prob
ably'' would not have happened but for
the failure of the conductor and engine
driver to obey the rules of the road.
There was ample justification for this
declaration, and they might properly have
stated it with great confidence. The
"rules - prohibited the trains from
travelling within less than ten minutes of
each other, except, we believe, at this
siding, where they were permitted to
run within five minutes Of each other in
order not to delay the express train. This
appears to have been the rule and excep-
ton, and it was very proper one to
have and if it had been observed these
victims would not have been slaughtered.
The train officers admit that it was not
strictly kept, and it appears that they
were not in the habit of keeping it.
It strangely did not occur to the coro-
ner's jury to inquire why the rule was
ono way and the custom another; nor
did they see fit to condemn the manage
ment of a company that permits such
lack of discipline among its officers. Can
it he that the jurymen, who were gener-
ally railroad men, believed that the rules
intended to be obeyed-of a railroad
company as strong as the Pennsylvania
railroad, which operated this road, would
be persistently disObeyed and defied by
the conductors and engineers? 1t does
not seem probable, does it? What then
is the inference? Simply that the rules
were not intended to be Obeyed; that the
railroad managers winked at the Omis-
sion to observe them and even gave the
train men to understand that they want
ed them to he disregarded, that time
might be saved. A ten or fifteen minutes
delay, which would have been caused ut
this siding to the express train if these
excursion trains had taken SO long to get
out of its road, would have been very
Objectionable. Even Il five minutes de-
lay would have been SO. The consequence
was that the excursion train engine
driver of the second section was anxious
to get on the siding as speedily rs posi-
ble, and to this end kept very short dis
tancc behind the first section.
Why was he thus anxious to get out of
the way of the other train quickly !?
Surely it was 10 concern of his if the
managers of the road cared nothing for
it. 1t cannot reasonably be supposed
that the train officers would have taken
the responsibility of violating what they
knew to he a peremptory order of the road
simply because of their individual desire
to let the express train make its time; such
4 supposition is absurd. When it is found
Us the jury finds, that this conductor and
engine driver violated the rule of the road
it should also have sought to ascertain
why they did SO, their motive for incur
ring so grave responsibility being by no
means obvious. It looks to us very much,
indeed, as though the train officers were
put forward to screen the higher officers,
who were the really guilty parties. The
second train left the depot but about one
minute, instead OF ten minutes, behind
the first section. This could not have
been done without being known; the
conductor could not secretly have sneaked
out with his train even if he had been
provided with Il personal object for viOlat-
ing the regulation.
The tenderness of this jury for the rail-
road company WAS quite unnecessary. 1t
may possibly aid in their work its ;d-
justing officers who are now going around
to the victims and their relatives, trying
to settle the damages; but it will not
convince the public generally that the
real responsibility for this slaughter does
not rest with the higher officers of the
railroad who permitted its rules to he dis
Ohpvpl