The Montgomery advertiser., 1906-03-25
SUNDAY, MARCH a5, 1908.
WHO WAS nEsraNs1ur.r.

While it is comforting to know that the casualty 1istih the recent Colorado disaster was not as large as first re- ported, t is certainly discomforting to know that what occurred there may occur on any road at any time. The signalman whose duty 1t was to give running orders to train No. 8 says that he went to sleep and failed to give the orders, That of course eonvicts him of negligence or carelessness. but must he bear all the blame? If that train was running on orders why did the ehgi- ncer and conductor pass on without making any effort to get the orders |? They must have known that their or- ders were to be given them at that place, and if the slgnalman failed to show up was it not their duty to in quire into the reason before proceed ing? All these are questions which arc germane, and which the travelling pub lie would like to have answered.
 But there is another feature of this wreck to be considered. and that is the responsibility resting elsewhere. Ev- cry employe of a railway. whether track-walker, switch tender, brakeman, signaImsn, engineer or conductor, is part of combined whole, and on each rests part of the responsibility for the safety of the train, just as each link of a chain must bear its portion of the weight suspended on it. If one link gives way all the others are useless for the time, and if one employe fails at a critical time the care and skill of all the others may be nullified.
 Now. the question will naturally and properly be asked. why was this sig mailman asleep at this critical time? If he was as unreliable as the facts in- dicate he was not a man who should have held such a position and the company did wrong to keep him there On the other hand, if this was his first ofensa there must have been a reason for It. One account that we have seen states that he had been on duty con- tinuously for three days and nights, and was simply worn out and not re- sponsible for what he was doing. It may be that the time has been over stated. but it has not been denied that he was overworked and for the time being unreliable.
 Whether the man had been on duty for three days or two, or only for twenty-four hours without rest and sleep, or whatever the time may have been. if he was on duty so long that he couldn't remain awake, the company must bear Its share of the blame for the disaster. Whether it required or only permitted an employe to remain at such an important post longer than was safe or prudent the company did wrong. If it forced him to work over time it should bear all the blame. If 1t merely permitted him to remain on duty longer than was prudent 1t is still not blameless.
 But the Uncomfortable feature of this affair is the reflection that what happened there is not impossible on any railroad and at almost any time, especially at night. Another man, on some other road. may fall to set signal, or switch, or obey orders and again two Ifdlhs loadeo WIth human beings may attempt to pass each other on the same track and another harvest of death be reaped. The railroad com panies have in their keeping the lives of many millions of people every year, and anything like careiessness or indif- ference should not be allowed. If an individual employe Is to blame for wreck he can be punished. and if the company is 10 blame it should not es- cape it's share of the penalty.