Mexico weekly ledger., 1914-10-29
Why Farmers Cooperative Union
Defeated Full Crew Proposition
in Texas Legislature.
is UNJUST TO RAILROADS
win Increase Cost Of Maintaining
Railroads And Win Be of No
Benefit At All.

at hand when all new railroad 3,
c]urities will be subjected to fedel
al and state surveillance before the
can be offered for sale and just a
the rev currency system will max
The recurrence Of a panic like IN
one Of 1907 impossible in the fu
ture, so questionable methods o
railroad financing such rs occurre'
under the old regime a dozen year
ago will be impossible from thi
time forward.
While the general public perhap
does not realize it. there is no NOR
powerful factor for clean bushes
methods in the Country To-Day thai
the thousands of big business me
in all lines of industrial activity VIII
are demanding these methods not on
ly because they are right but as
matter of protection for themselve
upon the line of activity in which
they are engaged.
Since the enactment of the "Ful
Crew Bill" which was touched upol
in last weeks article would compe
the railroads of Missouri to ask for
half million dollars larger yearly il
crease in rates than they will other
wise need, a little further discus
sion of this proposition may not b.
out of place.
Action of Farmers in Texas
In this connection, the action of thu
Farmers Cooperative Union of Tel
as which was chiefly instrumental
in defeating a Full Crew Bill" il
the 33rd Legislature of that state
should be of keen interest to thu
farmers of Missouri at this time. Ii
the annual convention of the Unior
which met at San Antonio in Angus
1918, the following resolution wa
unanimously adopted:
"We oppose the placing of any anC
all unjust burdens upon the railroad!
which the shipper must finally pa!
and we indorse the action Of Presi
dent Peter Radford and all other of
ficers and members of the Texal
Farmers Cooperative Union in op
posing the Full Crew Bill' before
the 33rd Legislature, said officers
and members in good faith believ
ing that the additional operating ex
penses of the railroads for one mil
lion dollars per year, which woulC
have followed from the enactment O.
said law, would have been thereb!
transferred to the shoulders of thu
producers Of the state without ma
terially benefitting the public" Viii
the farmers Of Missouri be less wid'
awake to their best interests in thu
forthcoming election when they vot'
on Proposition No. 8?
Putting Shoe on Other Foot
Suppose a proposition were pend
ing to increase the taxes Of the far
mers Of Missouri or of the merch
ants of the state more than a hal
million dollars per year? Woult
they not emphasize the injustice O.
it to the people? Would not ever.
farmers organization and CONNER
cial Club in the state denounce it
Or suppose an act was pending com
pelling the farmers and merchant
of Missouri to hire hundreds of ex
ira farm hands and clerks they d.
not need-wOuld they not bitterly n
sent it? And yet this is exactly wha
the advocates Of the"Full Crew Bill
are seeking to do to the railroads
Certainly merely because a r~ailroaI
. happens to be a public service cor
poration it has not lost all right t.
a square deal. Furthermore, as ha
been emphasized before, in this in
} stance the welfare of the railroad
is the welfare of the people-fo
when the burdens of the railroads b
come heavier than they can bear, tn
people must choose between payinI
them more money or sending Their
upon the rocks of confiscation an
ruin.
Meeting the Issue Squarely
But it is not the purpose of thi
article to plead for public sympath
g but to meet the advocates of tn
Full Crew Bill" squarely upon thei
. own ground and without abuse t
show that their demand rests upo
nothing more than a sentimental az
peal to the voter-an attempt to ere
ate the impression in the publ
mind that the railroads do not en-
ploy enough brakemen TO safely OF
r crate their trains and that this is rt
sponsible for all manner Of wreck.
injured workmen, etc. This is tn
ground they have chosen upon whic
to wage their battle and if The publ
records and statistics make the
claims ridiculous, the voters will b
justified in ignoring the heart-ren
ing appeals with which the state hs
U been flooded during the last mont
In last weeks article we quote
statistics from a number Of prom
nent railroads showing that MOI
trainmen are injured on trains carr,
ing less than 40 cars than on thos
carrying over 40 cars. The late
records Of the Nj, K. e. T. show tn;
e during the last fiscal year not a sil
II gle employee was killed on its lin
in Missouri and that 81 employe,
were injured on trains carrying LEI
than 40 ears and only q on train
carrying more than 40 cars-and o.
of these SO injuries II were no mo.
serious than getting a cinder in h
eye. In varying degrees the 9th
roads show the same general facts
t. Still more interesting, howeve
,e are the statistics of the Public Sc
:. vice Commission at Jefferson CT
in which is a record of all railroad a
cidents and their causes. The repo
for the fiscal year ending June Z
1913, shows the following facts: 0
of a total of Az railroad employee
killed in Missouri during that We;
r 10 lost their lives in collisions,
is by falling off trains, 2 by jumpi
on or off trains, 6 were struck
trains and a were killed in coupli
cars. In other words, Sc out of
were killed through contribute
~ carlessness Of their own in enc W
to Or another. Again, 104 were injur
nd in collisions, 200 in falling off trail
220 in jumping on or off trains,
were struck by trains while 90 w
injured in coupling cars-again sh
ing the overwhelming element
c~ontributory negligence upon
e part Of employees themselves.
nj the other hand, the records sh
al that only n trainman was killed
:, the state during the entire year q
III only 7 injured from defective c.
or engines-thus completely d
proving the wild statements made
the "Full Grew" literature conce