New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1891-04-01

&c once Without regard any penalties there might be 10
IT, and 10 1t In such way as would most conauee 70
the safety and comfort Of its passengers Az the Juno
that we did this the matter Of seamheatng was largely
experimental both comfort and safety but regarded
the law as mandatory upon all Newyork corporations anu
conscenousy work with my associates 70 carry
into effect in he best and most intelligent manner We
could.
Inc New.Hayen Road however is a Connecticut cor
poraton and has no charter In NewYork 1t runs 400
mics In Connecticut, ~ miles in Massachusetts ana 2
miles In NewYork. A law had been passed almost IN
the words Of this stcamheang law some years be-
fore. hut making it applicable to roads forty miles m
length instead of fifty miles, In reference TO water TANKS
In the cars the New-Haycn Road had what they con-
sidsre better system for the comfort OF their passengers
upon action being brought againt them TO enforce
the penalty the dismissed the ground that as
the New.Haven Company did not have forty miles In the
State of NewYork the statute did not apply When TINS
law brought TO the attention Of he counsel OF the
company by the presdcDt they unanimously Informed nm
hat both Of the fifty miles law and because the
traffic OF the company governed by the Interstate law
the statute Of NewYork did not apply In Connecticut
where this company is incorporated, and where IL mas
405 miles, against 259 miles in NewYork, the railroad
Commissioners Of the State have entire control Of tho
subject OF earheatng. That commission, acting under
legislative authority made general inquiry on the SUD-
ect Of ess-heatng, and reported in 1885, the year In
which this statute went into effect in Newfork, that
steam-heatng still In experimental state t3as
neither public safety prudence required the aoopto
OF steamheating railroads In Connecticut IN 1881
they reported that they had made further inquiries and
experience made 1t questionable whether any method Oh
yet devised safe and practicable and
expressed the opinion that the Baker heater which was
the used by the NewHaven road, was snnceht tor
the protection Of passengers In 1890 they gave an oFoef
orbddng general heating Of otherwise than by
steam or the Baker Spear heater But they say paccai
experience with various systems Of stean'heatng docs
not convince the safety and comfort OF the
travelling public would be increased ly the substitution
say OF them for the Baker heater.
Under these opinions the counsel for the company
the decision already had in State upon similar STAT
and action Of the Railway Commissioners OF Oo-
ncctieut N not deemed necessary by inc omcers W
hiring the question before tho board directors and so
brought before the board nor ae'ed
upon them by In any way. Since this agitation arose nave
made careful inquiry what action had been taken p
the Now.Hayen Railroad Company by way OF an aueinps
n, eomply with the law / learned that the officers Of
the been since the passage OF the ACT non
esy trying with experts to ind safe ana pfactea sys'
tenn would satisfy the law OF NewYork as to steam
heatng the datons OF the kailroo Conl-
soners of the State Connecticut and be at the same
tine comfortable for the travelling pubic-a sys-
tenn of steamheatng which would not bring i've steam
into the that these experiments had been carried OH
In the Yards and the cars OF the company ana lhst
within the last few months they thought they had found
system by which steam could be introduced from the OUT
side OF the car the Baker heater without having any
FIRE the heater without exposing passengers 10 dager
OF live in the Under this system the baKer
heater would be left that it might be USED In
emergencies in the of blizzard when the steam
was AS this result was reached the gen.
era manager of the company Mr. Tutte MADE contract
10 equip. trains with the system lie also maze an
appontnen with Mr.. Rogers chairman Of the New-York
State Railway Commission, few days before the aceidens
10 discuss with him the efforts which had been made by
tho SewRaven road and TO convince him that the New
Haven road had not been eonumacious In the mater Du
had been seeking to the best system although they
wers advised they not under any obligation OF Jaw III
the nhter and upon that statement Mr. Rogers soid ne
was willing TO make the same explanation 70 te Attorney
General
In reference to the action by the Acknowledgement
against the company boardof directors beard knew
potng OF that Of The tcrse OF the htgaton nor
Gid personally. But have ascertained the ncts'
they arc these The Railroad Commissioners as they are
compelled do by the statute. called the attention oil
be Acknowledgement the fact OF the failure of the New
Haven road to heaters from its cars The Az
torneyGenera his duty proceeded TO ENFORCE the
statute get Interpretation as to whether IL was
enforceable against the NewHayen road or not He had
the opportunity the law permitted him. to bring inc
matte at once head by attempt to ndict the d
t tors as has just DONE the directors are
Individually liable could have sued any one Of them
for the very large penalties which the statute imposes
The statute prescrbes 81 900 penalty and 800 day
for each offence. If each violation means each car then
the penaltics will amoun. 10 millions Of dollars.
The Attorney General elected to sue the corporation
far the penalties interposed. and this
went to the Court Of Appeals where IL was as
missed and he remanded for trial The CHIEF Judge
of the Court Of Appeals however voted to sustain the
demurrer showing that the Court of Appeals was DIVIDED
upon the question holding the New-Haven road amen
alc to the law viewing the case as mperecty pre-
scented to the by the demurrer That case OF inc
Attorney General against the company, which VIII bring
uo every question the liability OF the NewHaven
road ready for trial here in New-fork ana upon
ia trial questions vital to the New-H Haven road as an
interstate commerce road will be fully passed upon and ul-
tnaely receive final judgment not only Of our Court
of Appes but Court OF the United STATES
ne u one of those questions which that court alone
san give final Judgment
~ course II the directors individually liable Tor
Indictment instead the corporation then ;hey eaeh
az them have been liable since the LIST Of May 1855
Is 70 whether the law applies solely to the corporation
q, aects also the individual directors besides careful
examination which made myself. took the opinion OF
seyen very able lawyers, who, after days OF exhaustive
research ON me subject, independently 10 inc same
coacusorthat the applies only to the corporation
snd that the LEGISLATURE made the penalties large enough
"a insure the obedience corporation subject 10 us
provisions and that 1t intended also to make the
directors individually liable the Legislature woulo nave
MAINLY said So as it repeatedly done where 1t did 50
intend. 1910.
AIR Rockefeller, when asked by a TRIBUNE reporter
~ he had anything to say, expressed MS surprise al
iie action of the Grand Jury. He mad formerly eA'
messed surprise at the verdict of the coroDefs JURY
SThere are no more innocent men In the world uah