Harrisburg telegraph. [volume] (Harrisburg, Pa.) 1879-1948, 1917-03-12
ERE TO GO FOR ADJUSTMENTS THIS DOGS WORLD OF SPORTS
BROTHERHOODS AND
P.R.R. ARGUE FULL CREW
hood representatives deny this charge
emphaticaIly.
[CG1tinucd From First Page.

The Railroad Statement
The railroad statement to which the
Brotherhoods object in part follows:
The wreck was caused by a hot
box which burned off journal of the
eleventh car from the engine of the
freight train, derafling the car and ten
others. An Adams Express train,
about to pass on the adjoining track,
in the opposite direction, ran into the
derailed freight cars with the result
that the fireman and three attendants
on the Adams Express train were
killed.
The freight train was manned in
accordance with the terms of the
extra crew laws. 1t consisted of SO
cars, the three cars inexcess of the
number of 80 requiring the employ
ment of an additional brakeman.
THE inquiry conducted by General
Manager s. C. Lon gshows that in
the course of the run from Waverly,
N. j., to the point near Bristol Pa,
where the wreck occurred, distance
of about 54 miles, the conductor, the
fiagman and the rear brakeman--the
latter being the employe carried TO
conform with the extra crew laws
never left the cabin car at the rear of
the train, except during two brief
stops. On each of these occasions,
the conductor and rear brakeman
claims to have walked beside the train
VI dDOuI i've car lenSInS
from the rear. The head brakeman
rode in the engine cab from Waverly
to the point of the accident.
In the opinion of the officers of
the company who conducted the in
vestigation the accident would not
have occurred if the crew of the
freight train. had given proper atten-
ton to duty.
THE management believes that the
responsibility for the w reck rests with
the entire crew of the freight train,
with the exception of the fireman, in
difference to duty being shown by all
the other members, including the ad-
ditional brakeman carried in con-
formity with the extra crew law"
The brotherhood Statement
The statement of the brotherhoods
denying the charge in substance as
follows:
THE statement authorized by the
pennsylvania Railroad Company that
the facts which have been ascertained
as result of careful and thorough
investigation of the wreck of a freight
train and an Adams Express train
which occurred on February 20 near
Bristol, Pa, are believed by the man.
agement of the Pennsylvania Railroad
to furnish practical demonstration of
the truth of the contention that the So
, called Full Crew Law not only failed
TO increase safety but actually on
couraged indifference to duty. This we
cannot give credence for the reason
that 1T is based upon theory and no
fundamental reason is given for this
belief. Their own evidence in the in
Vestigation has proven that the wreck
was caused by a hot box which burned
of journal, derailing the train, an
Adams Express train about to pass in
the opposite direction ran into the de-
rallied freight cars with the result that
! the fireman and three attendants on
the Adams Express train were killed
The statement that the train was
manned in accordance with the terms
OF the Full Crew Law is fully denied
in their statement in that they claim
that the conductor and the flagman
and the rear brakeman rode in the
caboose and that the front brakeman
rode in the cab of the engine. If this
De true, then the evidence is that the
train was not manned in accordance
with the provisions of the Full Crew
Law.
In their statement they claim that il
the brakeman or the train crew had
been attending to their duties, this
journal in all probability would not
have burned eff. This statement alcpe
is sufficient evidence to convince any
person or persons that there is a neces-
sity for watchful brakeman on the
train and if the train crew was not
performing their duties or executing
the rules and regulations as laid down
by the railroad company then we can
only look upon 1t in the light that the
railroad company is not carrying out
proper discipline of their employees.
The fact that the railroad company
claimed in their statement that the
rear brakeman was carried as an enl-
ploye to merely conform with the pro-
visions of the Full Crew Law would
n 70 haf !, hnr he
required this man to ride out upon
the train and perform the duties of a
watchful brakeman"
The statement holds that the very
fact that the journal burned off is
proof of the need of sufficient men on
the train to look out for such mishaps
and that drastic measures should be
taken to require the companies to live
up to the law.
The charge is made that the Broth
erhoods have heard of cases where
men have been instructed to ride in
the cabooses and perform no duties
and have specific cases where this has
resulted in loss of life.
Continuing the statement says:
The Full Crew Law provides FOR
a careful supervision of the entire
operation of a train and the COM
pliance with all the rules of the rail-
road. In this case theoretically the
railroad company contends that fewer
men would give greater supervision of
a train than an engineer, a fireman,
two brakemen and a fiagman as pro-
vided for nthe Full Crew Law. This
bill provides for two brakemen and
the very necessary employees of every
train to wit: the engineer, firman, con-
ductor and fiagman-one brakeman
would have prevented the Bristol
wreck-two brakemen could not, is
their argument. An effort to enforce
the spirit of the law as we'll as the
letter of the law would compel all en-
ployes to discharge their full duty. The