The Providence news. (Providence [R.I.]) 1891-1906, 1894-07-17
WHY MOTT

ing lorJn suggestions Tor remedies
against such occurrences in the future,
and one Of the most sensible of these
suggestions Is found in the current issue
of the Railroad Gazette, in which a COR
respondent offers a solution modelled
somewhat. on the lines indicated by
Lawyer S. j. Elder of Boston, one of
the ablest members of the Suffolk BAR
This correspondent says: "My sug-
gestion is that national law should be
passed allowing railroads, or compelling
them, to require each person employed
in the actual movement of trains, either
as switchman, trainman, fireman or
engineer, to enlist by signing enlistment
papers for given term of service at a
given rate of wages; not mere
commercial contract, but one
having imprisonment penalties at
taohed, substantially the same as those
enforced under national army regula-
tions aud marine laws, tempered, Of
course, with humanitarian provisions,
such as discharge from the service at
any time upon certain conditions agree
able to both railroad and employe, the
period of enlistment to run for not less
than six months nor more than three
years, which will not allow a large
number of men to leave at any one
time. The benefit to railroads is obvi-
Gus and no less SO to the employed, as
they are guaranteed a stipulated rate of
pay for given time they are also pro-
tected against the consequences now so
serious, in money way, In their effort
to protect themselves. Desertion will
be punishable by imprisonment i'm.
prisonment is first of all as preven-
tive of contract breaking. Unanimity
of railroads could,-sao doubt, secure
such law"
OF course there are objections that
will be promptly urged against this
proposition, but railroads are quasi
public corporations, and the President
has recognized that any interference
with interstate commerce and the
transportation of the mails is something
more than an inconvenience. It is a
criminal act. The public depends upon
the continuous running of the railroads.
Any interruption causes immense losses,
and damages thousands of citizens de-
pendent upon the movement of trains
for their livelihood and the successful
conduct of their business.
AS the correspondent quoted above
points out: Laws are now in force to
protect the public against discrimination
aud loss by reason OF unequal freight
and passenger rates and advantages,
but not against the greater loss to them
occasioned by strikes. hence we may
assume that approval rather than oppo--
sition to such law would come from
that source"
Why should not men who desert trains
wherever they happen to be. who ex-
pose thousands of dollars worth of prop
erty and hundreds of lives to jeopardy
be punished just as men who mutiny on
the high seas? Why should the marine
commerce be protected and not the
laad2 Why should 1t be a crime fer=a
sailor to leave his post and not crime
for an engineer to leave his trainG
UThe correspondent says very pertin-
emily: "With such law in effect the
would-be railroad employee is allowed to
do his striking for particular salary,
before he enters the company's service,
with quite as good prospect Of success as
under the existing order of things, and
without inflicting loss upon the country
at large. Again, the disposition of any
man to strike for an unreasonable ad-
vantage before he is in position to
cripple a common carrier is less pro-
nounced than after he is placed in such
position"
There are arguments for and against
the proposition, but it certainly is time
that some action is take, and such
solution as is briefly outlined would
absolutely prevent any repetition Of the
troubles the nation has recently en-
countered.