Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1915-12-21
FULL CREW CASES
ARE PRESENTED
Continued From First Page. ]

Conductors, the companies contending
that the alleged violations were not
in disregard of the law, but carrying
operations which they asserted were
not covered by the act of 1918.
The first case was that of James
A. Lamb against the Pittsburgh and
Lake Erie, which was charged with
running a train of seventy-three cars
on October 2S with only five men
when II should have had six The
company's defense was that 1t was
yard operation, the practice being to
collect freight cars from industrial
plants along a line of 23 miles This
work, it was stated, was performed
by yard crews, who are paid differently
from men on the line who are paid
by the trip. The company contended
that the law did not cover such op-
erations. In answering James Scar
let, counsel for the trainmen, insisted
that the act was a general one and
made no distinction between work.
'Pcnnsy" Case Heard
In the second case complaint was
made by Milton T. Robinson, of Har-
risburg, that the Pennsylvania rail-
road had run train consisting of an
engine, mail, combination, day, dining,
parlor and five sleeping cars between
Harrisburg and Philadelphia on No
vember 2 without a baggageman.
The company contended that the bag
gage was placed in the front end of
the combination car by platform men
and the door locked until the next
station was reached when platform
men removed it., the defense being
that there was no work for the bag
gageman and that the train was man
ned as far as safety goes.
The case caused considerable dis
cussion by the Commissioners 1t was
the first of the cases against the Penn
sylvania railroad and Mr.. Lloyd, who
produced Trainmaster e. F. Dunlap
as a witness, contended that there was
no requirement for a man who had no
work do whereupon Mr.. Scarlet re-
joined that in emergency the baggage
man had to act as an extra brakeman.
He denounced the failure TO have q
baggageman as plain noncompli-
ance with the law" Mr.. Lloyd said
that nothing covers a train such as
was brought into the case and that
the company had been forced to guess
how to man the train. He said that
some reason had to be used in con-
STRUNG the act
Commissioner Pennypacker asked
If the sleeping cars were not to be
considered as passenger cars and was
told they We're, but that they had
porters.
During the afternoon several other
cases involving construction of the
law came up against the Pennsyl-
vania and Cumberland Valley, the
Reading also being brought in by a
complaint.
Commissioners Killing, Monaghan,
Magee and Pennypacker sat and for
a time Federal Judge G. B. Wilmer.
who happened to be visiting the Cap
itol. sat with the. Commissioners at
their invitation.
There was quite an array of coun-
sci, Mr.. Lloyd. G. H. Bergner and
J. e. B. Cunningham appearing for
the Pennsylvania; w. L. Kinter and
]. T. Brady for the Reading and w.
Seifert for the Pittsburgh and Lake
Erie. General Superintendent G.. w.
Creighton and Division Superintendent
w. B. McCaleb, of the Pennsylvania,
also attended.
Railroad men here to push the cases
were S. r. Tarner, NJ. L. Robinson,
S. Fl. Smith, S. L. Curry, James A.
Lamb, r. o. Romberger, G. B. Nc
Cam, H. NJ. Fritz and f. A. Michaels.