Omaha daily bee., 1905-08-22
RArLROAD Acc1DBSrs oOMrARED.
RrItl.h and American R.cord.-oon-

british ana American Reccrda-Con-
ceRiments Of the Former.
A comparison OF the Official records OF
accidents on American and British rail-
roads for the year 1904 Is not compliment
tary to American railroad management.
According to the statistics Of the inter-
state commerce commission one passenger
was killed for every 1872 S57 carried in the
United States and one for every lss 75s. 900
carried In Great Britain. The number OF
passengers injured was one In every 7s.523
carried in the United states and one In
every 22A,472 carried in Great Britain. The
official statutes further show that in 1904
1852 railroad employees were killed and 67,O67
injured in the United States against seven
killed and 1i4 injured in Great Britain.
These comparative figures, II correct,
are an indictment OF the reckless manage
ment of railroads in this country So start
ling is the discrepancy between the records
that the reader involuntarily asks whether
| the first is not excessive and the second
a partial one. The difference in the physi-
cal condition OF the roads and the respeo-
tive operating department can scarcely be
| great enough TO produce the wide di-
vergence in the record.
A correspondent Of the St. Louis Globe
Democrat, writing from London, presents
| some facts bearing on the comparative
| mortality records Of the railroads in both
| countries He shows the methods OF con-
| cealment and elimination by which the
railroads of Great Britain are made TO ap-
| pear so much safer for travellers than the
railroads Of the United States. He saws:
| Through the courtesy Of a high official
! OF the British government 1 was permit
ted 10 see the preliminary report Of the
board of trade statistics giving the num-
bers OF those who were killed or injured
on British railways during 1904 1t showed
that the railway death roll last year
amounted to 1,15s, and that 1879 persons
were more or less grievously injured.
| These figures may be taken as correot
If the report had been allowed to 20 forth
| without alteration everybody would know
! the true situation, and little would be
heard about the alleged marvellous Inn
munity from danger enjoyed h. those who
travel in the antquated, stuffy and incom-
modious carriages of the British railway
| companies. But before It could be issued
to parliament IT had to undergo some won
oerous changes at the hands Of expert sta
tistical manipulators. I have seen the ad-
vance sheets OF that report. The original
compilation has been cut up into sections,
and the casualties distributed under vari-
|
the railroads of as much responsibility as
possible for them and fool the public. And
In the process many Of the killed and IN.
i jured disappear altogether"
| IN the introduction this statement is
made: THE danger of railway travelling
] has been reduced to such q point that in
1904 the chances against passenger be-
Ing Killed in the course Of a given Jour
ney were more than 200, 100000 to l." That
| statement will be quoted far and wide
as proof Of the wont Gus vigilance and
! efficiency Of British railway officials in
safeguarding the lives of passengers. 1t
| VIII be com-"red with the mortuary rec
ords OF Am can railways, with results
| Overwhelmingly in favor of the English
system of transit But the statement is
absurdly false. 1t is based on "doctored''
figures. It is amazing that a high-salaried
British official should have the audacity
to make It, and to ask Parliament and
the British public to believe 1t, whoa the
same report in which 1t appears furnishes
conclusive proof of it's mendacity.
| A foundation for II is obtained by a
process of elimination which makes It ap-
pear, as set forth in one of the tables,
| that only six passengers were killed
| through train accidents" And only these
six are allowed to count in reaching the
comforting conclusion that a passenger In
an English railway train runs only one
! chance in 2OO,OOO,OOO of being killed. But
there were 1O9 other passengers killed,
| according to the official report by "acci-
dents from other causes" Nine OF them.
for instance, lost their lives through pas
senger trains or parts of passenger trains
| leaving the rails" Thirty-three were
killed by failing out Of carriages during
| the running of trains" This is due to the
| subdivision of cars on British railways
| into small compartments, with doors on
either side. Railway attendants bang them
| to as trains leave the stations, but often
| they fail to close them securely, and the
| luckess individual who chances to lean
| against one that hasn't been fastened finds
It veritable death trap. One passenger
in every 100000 runs the risk of being
killed in this way on an English railway.
| But he doesn't figure among those who
| are killed by "train accidents" What are
vaguely termed 'other accidents" account
for the death Of twenty-one OF the ex-
cluded 1Oa
The same method is adopted in dealing
with railway employees who are killed or
| injured Only seven OF them figure as
being killed by train accidents" To
other causes variously classified are at
tributed the deaths OF 400. The grand
totar' OF the official report. which is sup
posed TO include all casualties on railroads,
shows 1853 killed and e,2Ss injured. BY
some statistical hocus pocus ninety-nine
deaths that appeared in the preliminary
report have been dropped out, and the
number of those injured has been dimin-
ished by over 1900.
British railway companies obtain their
earnings chiefly from their passenger
| trafic. The accident statistics relating TO
them are distorted in their interests. BY
some mysterious method they control the
system under which they are tabulated.
The board of trade statisticians who com
pile the figures are not responsible for II.
They view with disgust the botch that is
made of their labors by the higher officials
| One OF the compiers, with whom I dis
cussed the burlesque oficial report, told