New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-06-06
TIE RAILROAD CROSSING DISASTER.

TIE RAILROAD tRDSSINb D'HiHihH
The bitter and unrcdectng dcnunciation with
which the Long Island Railroad Company was
assalled Immediately after the dreadful disaster
of last week was not unnatural in view of what
excited and angry spectators ana SURVIVORS were
saving about 1t. as Of their OWN knowledge tut
TO admit that the cCnsure so hnrrledly adihihS-
tered was not unnatural IS not 10 ADMIT tha' II
was credtable. by any means Those VINO ohl!
read about the catastrophe, and therefore mao
no excuse for losing their senses. ought 10 nave
reflected that the first reports of such an AMIR
can scarcely ever he trusted. Without any de
sire or intention to misrepresent the facts, VIII
nesses seldom are mentally capable OF telling the
truth. They need time 10 collect their tholShts
and recover their balance. In the first moments
of horror and grief they almost always lhnk
they have seen crime committed, when per
haps they have only seen m accident happen
An unofficial staicmen; from the president OF
the Railroad Commission. bGscn upon evidence
obtained by one of lis inspectors, traverses most
of the accusations which were instantly brought
against the company. If tho facts actually were
what the inspector believes them ~ have been,
the signal bell was not ont Of order hut gave
the usual warning: the track M that point is not
wholly invisible except from the crossing itself:
W
the driver not only could hay" seen the loco
motive in time TO stop his coach before il reached
the rails but did see Il and drove on, believing
he could get across and save his leaders. which
might have been struck if he had pdllcd them
ND; the persons who say that the bell did not
ring mean that they did not hear it ring. which
is not strange in consideration Of their lack of
attention and the noise that the coach and its
occupants were making.
OF course, the inspector is not infaibe. His
assertions may be not merely contradcted but
refuted at the coming inquest. which ought to
be thorough and conclusive. But it is certain
that his information is for the present better
entitled 10 credence than the first impressions
Of persons in a tumult of excitement. 1t does
not follow, however, that the company should
be wholly freed from blame. in case the facts
as narrated by the inspector are established.
Too much can be made of the argument that the
disaster occurred on a branch line over which
only three trains pass daily. A more important
fact is that n great many pedestrians, bicycles
and other vehicles pass over it daily. and that
they are entitled 10 ample notice of the approach
of those three trains. AT such point the com
paratvely feeble ringing Of Il bell is not. in our
opinion. an ample warning. There ought to be
a 11IEnan Incre, IL HOt Edtc. lloN tdlHtn'l!
the residents had tried to obtain such n measure
of security is still disputed question; but they
had not done all they could, for they might have
applied 10 the court as well as TO the company.
on the otner hand. the company ought not 10
have waited for legal compulSiOn before sta
toning n fagman at Il dangerous crossing.
1t remains 10 be said, however. that tho in
dividual on whom the heaviest burden of blame
must rest is the driver Of the coach. His pas
sengcrs may or may not have realized that they
were about to cross n railroad track. He knew
IT, and they trusted him. II Is not pleasant to
preach to a man In his distressing condition,
but it does seem 10 be necessary in such case
to insist upon the lesson which il offers to teach.
Whoever walks or drives across on unguardcd
railroad track without stopping to look and
listen Is fool.