New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1913-07-11
ROAD INSISTS FAULT
WAS WITH ENGINEERS
Declares Employment of mex
perienced Man Was Forced on
II by It's Enginemen.


Tho New York. New Haven & Hartford
Company yesterday afternoon replied to
the Interstate Commerce Commissions
report on the Stamford wreck. as follows
The Interstate Commerce Commission 5
report on The Stamford accident. In which
the New York. New Haven & Hartford
Railroad Company is held negligent in
putting In charge OF such train as
second 40. 20 an ongineman incXpe-
Renee and uninstructed for that class Of
work fails 10 state that the employment
Of this engineer was practically forced
upon the New Haven Railroad by the en-
ginecrs Of the company.
"On May II. 1910. an agreement between
the engineers and the company was en-
tered into providing that spare engineers
shall be run first In and out. so far as
II is possible with the requirements OF
the service. and when engineers are as
signed 10 temporary vacancies they shall
remain on same. provided they are COM
petcnt, until tho regular engineer returns.
They shall receive rates Of the regular
engineers while on the road This rule
If practically the same as had been IN
effect before any agreement vas entered
into
In the fall Of 1872 an order was issued
10 the effect that spare engineers who
had lcss than two years experience or
two years rating as engineers would not
he allowed 10 run through passenger
trains. This order was protested by the
engineers on the ground that the com
pany had not adhered TO the rule OF civ
ing the engineers thirty days notice be-
fore amending existing rules. The COM
pany then issued the thirty days notice,
was general manager. having been ap-
pointed I'm the interim between the post
Ing Of the notice and its expiration.
The engineers OF the company. as was
the case with all the Eastern railroads,
had been In an unsettled state OF mind
owing TO the arbitration Of the wage
question. and Mr.. Bardo. realizing this,
and the engineers stu protesting. asked
the engineers to propose counter ruling
on this question Of experience in running
trains. The engineers offered the rule
which is now in effect, which provides.
Instead OF two years experience, a re-
Quiremcnt Of one years experience. Mr..
Bardo accepted this amendment because
It was essential to public safety that the
engineers should get back 10 work with
out having another long dispute 10 settle
with the company. Furthermore. not a
single case could be found where the
young engineer had been the cause of any
trouble whatsoever.
The company was demanding some
thing that was unnecessary, was the view
Of the engineers. and the company could
not prove from past experience that a
two years rating was necessary Mr.
Bardo considered It step In the right
direction.
Mr. Doherty. the engineer on second
No. So the day of the accident, had an
excellent record. The company had no
way OF telling that he was incompetent
In fact, Mr. Bardo testified before the
Interstate Commerce Commission that he
still believed in all general matters as
to his competency, that Doherty was a
competent man.
THE Interstate Commerce Commission
reports the company negligent for en-
ploylng Doherty on this run. but passes
over the part played By the engineers In
this matter"