Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1898-01-26
VESTIBULES TO CARS.
MIR. FOLKEys BILL REPORTED BIZ
THE SENATE COMMITTEE.
VIGOROUS PROTESTS FROM COMPANIES
Their Counsel Oppose the Measure
More Because of Increased Dam
ger Than on the Ground OF Ex-
pense-LegisIntive Gossip.

pensc-LegisIative Gossip.
The Senate Committee on Roads and
Internal Navigation yesterday afternoon
decided to report favorably the Folkes
bill requiring street railway companies to
equip their cars with vestibules for the
motormen.
Mr.. Charles T. Bland, the Delegate
from Portsmouth, made forcible ar
gument for the bill, arguing that the
manner In which motormen were COM
PEELED to muffie themselves In winter
when working on cars unprotected by
vestibules prevented their exercising the
proper care to avoid accidents. He also
argued that considerations of humanity
should move the committee TO report the
bill fayorably. Many motormcn had con-
tracted serious and often fatal lung trou-
BILE by reason of exposure, and the public
riding on unvestibuled cars was subjected
to great discomfort. He read a letter
from the general manager of the Ports
mouth and Port Norfolk street railway,
saying that his company had long used
the vestibuled cars, and not only found
them perfectly satisfactory but he could
not see how any company could refuse
TO protect its employees when IT. could
be done so easily. Mr.. Bland also stated
that a great electric line in Philadelphia
was equipping its cars with vesubules at
a cost of $25 each, and that the cars on
the line between Old Point and Newport
News had long been so equipped, with
results satisfactory in every respect.
DIFFERENT ON CROWDED STREETS.
Mr.. McRae, representing the electric
railway Of Petersburg, argued that the
railroads cited by Mr.. Bland as using
the vestibuled cars were practically SUI
burban lines, where such could easily De
operated, but upon crowded streets II was
necessary that the men running the cars
should be able to exercise the utmost
watchfulness, in order to avert accidents,
which they could not do encased in glass
and wood.
Mr. McRae showed that in all the states
where street railway companies were re-
quired by law to have vestibuies on their
cars, special conditions existed, making
such legislation practicable.
FOR RICHMOND LINES.
Mr.. f.. Randolph williams, president OF
the Richmond Traction Company, argued
along the same lines. He dwelt upon the
fact that it was impossible for a motor
man shut up in one of the proposed Yestl-
bules to see and hear clearly enough TO
enable him to run his car in manner
necessary for the safety Of the passen-
gers in his car, or those who were on the
streets.
Mr.. A. b. Guigon. counsel for the Rich
ri no
made n strong argument against the bill.
saying that the company did not care for
the slight cost involved i'm complying
with the proposed law, but opposed 1t on
the ground that it's men could not pro-
perly discharge their duties with the yes
Thule attached. He said the company
was operating several vestibuied cars
which had been purchased from a COM
pany which Instituted a SUBURBAN line,
and did not know Inuch about street rail-
WAYS. but that in order to avoid acct
dents the company had to have the very
hest motormen i'm its employ operate
them He believed the damage suits
which would result from using the YES
tibules would cost the company very
much more than the amount expended
in making the change. In conclusion, he
asked IL the committee decided TO report
the bill favorably, that 1t would at least
except the mule-oars operated on Broad
street. The driver couldn't thrash ms
mules If he had 10 sit in vestibule, ana
the mules wouldn't go without the casti-
cation.
Mr.. A. p. Thorn, counsel for the Norfolk
eet-Railway Company, spoke against
the bill. saying the streets OF Norfolk
we're very narrow; that 1t was undoubted-
70 them
without yestibules. and that with these
the danger would be very much increased.
He thought the motorman OF car was
much like the lookout on q vessel, who
had TO stand for hours in sleet and rain,
I'm order TO insure the safety of the pas
sengers, crew, and property. He thought
that IL there was to be any legislation
affecting the motormen 1t should be IN
the direction of giving them shorter
hours.
THE PATRON is HEARD.
Delegate f. C. Folkes. of Richmond.
the patron of the bill made a very eff
fective argument for the measure. he
said the whole of the opposition Of the
companies resolved itself into matter
of dollars and cents. He knew the bill
was earnestly desired by every motorman
in Richmond. though he thought they
were afraid to say SO. He did not think
the statements furnished by the oppo-
nents of the bill. alleged to come from
leading street-railway men Of the coun-
try were reliable, and endeavored 70
show Instances in which they were not.
He said he was opposed to radical iegIs-
lation of every character, and did not
propose to endeavor to work on the SYM
pathies of the members OF the committee
t-ff M "a
for proper protection for operators OF all
street-cars, including the mule-driyers.
Mr.. Folkes's speech was very strong
one, and IT was plainly evident that IT
impressed the committee deeply.
After short executive session the COM
mttee decided to report the bill favor
ably, with an amendment, excepting
Petersburg from the operation of the law.