The labor world. [volume] (Duluth, Minn.) 1896-current, 1904-05-14

The supreme court of the United
States in a decision handed down this
week holds that a. fellow-servant is
responsible for either the carelessness,
the negligence or incompetency of an
other employe. The case at issue was
one in which the operator failed to give
orders, which resulted in the death of
fireman. His wife brought suit for
damages against the company. The
case was carried to the supreme court.
The court held by a vote of to 4
that the railroad company was not re-
sponsible, holding that the wife should
seek redress from the operator who
was in error.
Closely following the decision comes
an editorial from the Duluth Evening
Herald commencing the decision of the
court. It draws picture and turns
from the railroad to the factory, and
lays particular stress on the small fac
tory, where the vocations and the risks
are entirely different.
The editorial in question has excited
much attention in railroad circles. The
employees of several railroads: were in
terviewed by Labor World represen-
tative and the following interview
was secured. Names ar omitted for
reasons best known to the men and
the companies they work for.
One of them said:
1.-THE decision takes the last.peg from
protective legislation for life and limb
in railroading. Why should I be re-
sponsible for the incompetency OF a
telegraph operator? I am an engineer.
Before am permitted to run an engine
I am obliged to pass through most
rigid examination on both machinery
and train rules. We are put through a
careful physical examination, and but
few are permitted to run an engine UNI
less they are known to be physically and
mentally competent. On the other hand
operators are chosen in an entirely diff
ferent manner. Ninety-tive per cent.
of the railroad telegraphers receive a
compensation of not more than $50 a
month. The most competent operators
Railroads break commercial operators
in, and after they become competent
they get out Of the railroad business;
therefore the railroads are but school
for operators, and while they are be-
ing educated, we who are in the train
service are unknowingly running the
risk. No one can thoroughly appreciate
the breadth Of this decision unless he
has sat in the cab of a locomotive. We
do not know what is before us. The
dispatcher knows what is going on
over the entire road. He instructs and
warns us through his operators at the
several stations. Because an incom-
petent operator gives us a wrong order,
which results in the loss of life or limb
l. to JUS, where are we responsible? Are
we to blame for incompetency? Have
we any right to demand of the railroad
| company that they employ different
| class of operators? In fact, we do not
know who the operator is. We have
no means of ascertaining his compe-
tency. We are in the same position as
the passenger who rides upon the train.
I'm my opinion the decision holds the
same relation to the labor ques-
ton as the Dred-Scott decis-
ion held to the slavery question. In
fact 1T is worse. In our case there is
no escape, while the fugitive slave, if
| once on the Canadian border was safe
and free.
Each court decision, it seems, is les
SEEMING the opportunity for railroad men
to secure redress from the carelessness
! of the company on it's service. Now
1 cannot see where I'VE ever can be re-
paid for loss of lire or limb in a rail-
| road accident
THE evening Herald suggests that
the only thing for railroad men to do
| is to take out life insurance. This is
the most ridiculous proposition I ever
heard of. We cannot get insurance for
total disability for more than one year,
and the highest rate is s20~ per week.
II any OF us become manned for life,
because OF the carelessness or incom-
potency of fellow employees, what are
we to do at the end of one year? The
proposition is preposterous upon its