The Washington bee., 1895-11-09
-Ezs,S sTTff.-- E:,sS
-H 800 az H EHE 7Ea1
sxx-rzsssbs sssbsAag w. |haasI
Robber and Collision Proof Mail Car.

Robber and Collision Proof Mall Car.
being ten in number and EXCEPTIONAL.
heavy, while between the inner an
outer sills are steel plates half an inc!
in thickness.
The cars were designed with the OBJ
ject of safely resisting end conclusions
in order to protect the lives of the rail
way mail clerks. The ends are practi
cally without platforms, but heavy ant
heavily framed, while strong angl,
| irons protect them at every po int
| Each car is practically an ironclat
fortress, and so staunchly put together
as to be incapable of destruction by
collision.
This Introduction of collision-proo1
cars by the Government will doubtless
be followed soon by efforts to builC
non-destructive passenger cars for or
dlnary railway service. 1t will pay the
railroads to build such cars, for acci-
dents will occur spite of every precau-
ton, and the loss both from legal dam
ages and destruction of property woulG
be greatly minimiZed by the use Of sue.
cars. There is a fair prospect, indeed,
that railway travel in the not very dis
tant future will be practically free from
danger to life
The color line in the public schools Of
Both this city and Brooklyn has give.l
considerable trouble at times. The Gnos
recent case was that of Miss Susan
Elizabeth Frazier, a young colored wo-
man, Who applied for a mandaHus to
compel the trustees of the Twenty-sec-
ond Ward School Board to appoint her
as a teacher in School No 5S Miss
Frazier passed the necessary examira-
ton, and was an applicant for a posi~
zion, and set up the claim that sh"
was not appointed on account, of her
color.
The application for a mandamus wa
made to Judge Barrett, of the Supreme
Court. In denying it Judge Barrett
said the trustees had discretionary
power, and could not be compelled 10
make particular appointment am0ue
many capable applicants. Even ::
prejudice could be shown, he said. hc
had no power to compel the t1ustee.
to appoint a particular applicant This
is g. reversal of some previous decisions
in similar cases. and it is interesting to
know that the Supreme Court declares
the enforcement Of the color line in the
>
ed persons without remedy.
Judge Ingraham in the Hannigan
murder trial, which is on this week
mas very strongly emphasized The re-
cent attitude of our courts in the mat
ter of sympathetic testimony in mur-
der cases. 1t will be remembered that
Hannigan shot to death Solomon H
Mann, his sisters alleged betrayer il
the presence of the coroner's jury that
was investigating the cause of hel
1eath. The defence is emotional in
sanity, and Hannigan's counsel at
tempted to introduce testimony show
ing the bad character of Mann. Judge
lngraham firmly shut out all such tes-
timony, declaring in the most en-
phatic terms that Manns character
had nothing to do with the case. and
hat 1t was just as much murder to kill
1 bad man as to kill a good one An
attempt to introduce evidence of the
indictment Of Mann for melting the
crime that led to the death of Hanni.
yan's sister was also ruled out, the
Judge declaring: whether Mann we.
guilty Of any cirme is entirely inmate
"ial" The outburst of sympathy tha:
followed the conviction of Marie Co
some months since does not seem to