The times., 1897-08-24

prove by d roundabout method that The
company's orders were to lower the gates
first
do you pull the signals first, or lower
the gates2" he asked.
I'VE pull the signals first and then lower
the gates,'' was the reply.
Can you lower the gates without letting
go of the sIgnals?'''
"No, SIT
Don't your orders say that you must
hold the Signals until the train passes?''
..Yes, sir; but we rasueu the signals
with piece OF iron and then lower the
gates"
Then you have been disobeying orders
for about three years?"
II suppose 50, but If we lower the gates
first we are apt to be arrested 1or op-
structing the road
witness declined to say positively that
IL was fear ef arrest which inIpelled him
TO disobey his orders lie said he mad
worked the Deanwood tower for three
years without trouble, but had often said
it was an awful lot of work for one
man to do.
But when you said that" interrupted
Mr. Flannery, ''you meant that 1t was an
awful lot OF work to do for $40 month,
did you not?''
STILL said Mr.. Taggart, You would
rather have another man to attend to the
gates?''
Yes, sir"
What are your positive orders about
gates and wire Work."
We are instructed to give train work
the preference over all other duties"
Several unimportant witnesses failed
to throw any further light on the acci-
dent, except to prove that 1t was dan
gerous crossing, and the jury was just
about to retire TO consider the verdict,
when James H. Loving, the operator at
Landover, put in his appearance. He
testified as to relieving the day man at
Landover just previous 10 the time of the
accident. The day man told him of
Baker receiving the message as To train
327, the southbound train, although wit
ness said lie himself knew nothing Of it.
He Lad often worked at Deanwood. He
always made IL rule To first put down
the gates and afterwards attend TO the
signals, as that was the only really safe
way. He could not say whether there WAS
toe much work at Dean wood or not.
He himself had always be en- able to get
along very well by himself.
Levi Baker, who was on duty In the
tower Friday night, was recalled. Asked
If he had ever been in the tower while
Loving worked there, he replied that he
had, many times. He denied that Loving
put DOWN the gates before attending TO
the signals. Loving had done as he him
self had always done, and that was TO
give the train work the preference, and
work the gates as soon as, In his judg-
ment, they ought to be put down, and
as soon as the train came III sight, if
he had nothing else to do. There was
no absolute rule as to the letting down
of the gates.
This closed the testimony, and, after
considering the evidence for almost two
hours, the verdict as above was rendered.
Assistant District Attorney Taggart, in
speaking to a Times reporter after the
inquest, said that he had no desire to
the work of the jury. at does
not see IN To me, however, he said, that
we have not yet answered the question as
to who is responsible. The jury declares
that characterization was not responsible
for the accident. Somebody certainly is
Is it the engineer, whose direct action un-
doubtedly was the immediate cause of
death? That is TO be doubted. Was IL
the young man, Baker? The jury eXoner.
ates him, because he was engaged in fol-
lowing the rules of the railroad company
Without going into the question as to Just
how culpable he would be under the circunl-
stances, if this were a court OF law, it
seems to Ine that If he is not responsible,
then it must be the officials who placed
him in a position where he had to do
the work OF two men. The verdict, how
ever, is Indefinite. 1t says the company
You can't drag them into court and
punish them.
1T see ms TO me that If any one is
responsible, and some one must be, since
Judge Claughton was not. that some one
ought TO be found. I do not know posi-