The advocate., 1891-04-15
A InnInIAL RARnn.

ttNtly luVuWou IN kie MhNAhimNhb or hIe NOV
York, Now Haven q Hartford Railroad com
pany, have been indicted for whar practically
amounts 10 manhlaughtor, because certain OIh0F
men, whom thoy trusted, hlled 10 obey tho hW
In prohibiting tho use OF stoves 0n railroad
trains. II was easy enough for tho grand Jury,
had Il desired, 10 hnd out who really WAa 70
spOnsblo for tho contempt placed upon the New
York law by the Oflces OF the Now York, New
Haven q Hartford road. But men OF s8nso and
honesty know that In the management Of great
corporation there isa vide difference In tho re-
spOnhbllity attaching 70 moroly representative
dlFe6tOrahip and tho active control OF the prop.
erty. President Clark OF the New Haven road
IL In a very different situation from that occupied
by Mr. Depow and Mr.. Rockefeller. Journal 0f
BtndnOe
The grand jury should have hunted
upsome emplOye Of the company who
is working for a dollar a day and in
dicted him FOR the oiIensO In that
case there would have been no doubt
Of conviction. Of course, no one ex-
poets that anyone Of the parties In
dicted will ever be found guilty.
They are reputable mon"() who
only hGve the management of the
road at salaries Of $4,000 10 $4,000
per annum. They do not run the
trains. How can they be responsible
for anythingi
Another article relating 10 this
subject in the same issue Of the Jour
nal of Finance is as follows:
As had been anticipated, the grand Jury nn-
lahed their investigation OF tho Fourth avenue
tunnel disaster yesterday by handing 10 Judge
Fitzgerald - true blll for misdemcanOr against
the O1icers and directors OF the New York, New
Haven & Hartford railroad company, inOlud-
ing President Charles +. Clark, Vice President
y. M, Reed, Wilson q, Hunt, u. II. Trowbrldgo,
W. d. BiahOp, Henry O. Robinson, Joseph Park,
Henry =. Loo, ChaunCoy NJ. Dopew, Nathaniel
Wheeler, william Rockefeller and LevoEott
BralnoTd.
To those who heard the address Of Judge Fltz.
gerald on the day preceding Che finding Of tho
grand Jury yesterday was not surprise. Tn
fact, 10 Was generally expected. In an there are
seven counts In the indictment, but the specific
charge s chat the officers and directors arc liable
for heating their cars with prohibited stoves.
The punishment under the law on conviction
ia q minimum one Of 81 fine or maximum one
Of 5000 hne and one year In prison.
hn at a hftnH
10 viii be we'll nigh impossible 10 secure q con.
victiOn, Even should such an effort be hucceus
ful, the minimum nne will in all likelihood bO
imposed though, OF course, Clap.trap politicians
will cry 90 attract public attention aud cheap ap-
plaus0 by o wClOusy energetic prosecution
journal Of FiNdncs AprlL
Suppose this same indictment were
against poor employees Of the road,
who labor for a livelihood, and who
have families dependent upon their
daily labor for support. Would 'the
most eminent legal authorities" be
likely to agree that it would "be we'll
nigh impossible to secure ConvictiOnW
And in case of conviction, does any
one suppose that the minimum fine
would be impOsedH The eGttrOuble
with our judicial as well as our social
system is that dollars rather than
character make reputable men," who
are entitled 10 immunity from The
consequences OF their acts.