The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1911-09-22
STATEMENT BY MR. O'AERk
Secretary of Trainmen's Executive Board Comments on Statement
 of Senator McNeil.
To the Editor of The Farmer:-

of Senator McNeil. To the Editor of The Farmer
 My attention has been called to statement. in your paper Sept. lS, ny Senator McNeil relative to Senate Baii 46-better known as the full crew bill-in connection with my visiting H. A. Bishop lodge, III, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, last Sunoay evening for the purpose of dlscussing organization work along Legislative lines.
 Senator McNeil has become involved in this matter through the press m manner that was in no way intended by the action of the meeting. Is true his attitude on this measure was very disappointing to our organlza- tions, and especially to the railroad men about Bridgeport, but the action of the meeting was wholly cOmmenda- tion of Senators Bartlett and Fad dock, and Representatives Bent and Meltzer for their support to this bill and labor legislation in general.
 A copy of the resolution adopted was given to a representative of an other newspaper for publication in the issue of the following date, and m stead of publishing it I find story entirely different from the intention of the lodge, under the head lines:
  am mentioned. as being strong in my
 criticism of Senator McNeil, also.
 This is an error. It was mentioned
 during the interview that several or the trainmen expressed their olsap-
 proval of Senator McNeil for voting against the full crew bill. Other than that there was no reference to him in critical sense by the writer. The statement by Senator McNeil
 was unnecessary, but since it contains some false references to the consld- eration of the measure in question, Tn justice to our organizations it is felt some reply should be given.
 | To begin with, our organizations never question fany public officials right to vote on matters of concern l to them if he is honest in his con victions and they fail to intelligently | inform him of their interest, even though it is adverse to their desire. | Senator McNeil indicated to the | writer on a number of occasions dur l ing the early part of the session that l he was favorable to this bill, and even within a few days prior to the report l of the committee answered in the af- Affirmative to MT. B. A. Wynne, repre- l sentative for the Order of Railway Conductors, when he .enquired of him l how he felt on the matter.
 l He stated on the date of first con- | CT in the presence of two other per sons, that he had no interest in the bill and might have voted for it had l he been spoken to.
 1 Before the conference committees report was considered he. was consult ed again by persons interested, and an excuse of not being informed seems out Of the question, yet he did not | support the amendment desired by the joint legislative board. He was not the only one who voted against | the amendment, but what makes his I action so affective was his apparent deceptive attitude when the time ar rived to take vote on the question. There never was any doubt as to where he stood after the first vote
 was taken, even though a positive an- I swer on the question could not be ob-
 tained from him. We lost the sup port of Senator Meara on one vote through the failure of Senator Me Neil to announce being paired with
 him, thereby causing considerable em-
 barrassment to this Senator until he got an opportunity to explain his sit | uation.
 He states that the committee unan- imously reported in favor of referring the entire proposition fo the newly created Public Utilities Commission. !" | This is a mistake. The Senate Jour I nal shows that the committee report ed rejection of the original bill, Sen ator Tenn introduced amendment
 schedule "A'' providing for the same
 features as the original measure with
 a few deductions, and it was ordered
 printed and on the calendar Amend
 to the Public Utilities Commission for
 adjusting complaints of insufficiently manned trains was offered by Senator Judson and adopted by the Senate
 and this is where the Public Utilities
 Commission was drawn into the mat
 ter.
 He further states '.the bill did not provide for additional trainmen or passenger trains with which the pub l lie is most concerned. .. Ii was pointed out in the debate in the Senate.''
 It was also pointed out that the con. trary was a fact, too, and we see nc reason for his taking refuge in tht debate for or against.
 The bill and the amendment "A both provided for one more man or several passenger trains where ont I man is doing the work of trainmer at the present time, and that feature was not the only interest the train men had, for more important to then is 1t to have the assurance that [ minimum crew be established whici would prevent their being sent ou with long trains with only one train : man and be subject to unjust censurt for irregularities they are not respon } sible for
 The same applies to freight trains Conductors are often compelled tt take out crew of two men, one O which may be new, inexperienced, fol a brakenlan's duties are generally tht initial service in the transpOrtatio department of a railway, and to per form switching with due regard fo freight, and especially fragile matter is not very pleasant duty with ont
 brakeman while the other is protect 4 ing his train by flag. Often times i is necessary to send out protection both ways and conductor is lief alone to do the switching. The pub lie interest in this legislation does no seem very apparent, but if they were