Catoctin clarion. [volume] (Mechanicstown, Md.) 1871-1940, 1922-02-09
lSK REPEAL OF
. FUtE CREW Law
POINT OUT UNNEcEssARY BUR.
DRN ON COMPANIES oPERAr.
ina IN MARYLAND AND
p THE PUBLIC.

Annapolis, Ad.-In the State senate
Mr.. Mitchell has introduced = Bill
% repeal the so-called full crew law,
which was referred to the committee
On judicial proceedings and arrange
meats, will be made ut An early date
Ssr hearing on the measure. Pres
iAsnt Broeninx Of the Baltimore Fed
grafton Of Labor and his colleagues
ws already on the scene to oppose the
enactment.
The law was enacted IN 1908. It -.
suirse the railroads to man all freight
trains Of thirty or more cars with six
men, i engineer. hreman. ! con-
luctor and brakemsn. one Of the last
hsdng designated as . dagman though
really assigned to the duties OF
brakeman. The railroads claim that
this crew comprises one more brake
man than they need. II effects the
baltimore L Ohio. tho Pennsylvania
and the Western Maryland Railroad
companies, which operate in Maryland.
The Norfolk and Western and the
Philadelphia and Reading Railroad
companies also come within the pro-
Visions Of the law, though not TO the
sams extent - the other roads. The
object Of the repeal bill II to effect econ.
envy IN the management OF railroad
property. During the last ten years
whom the law has been In active enect
II has cost the Baltimore Ohio, the
Pennsylvania and the Western Mary
hand Railroad companies about 81
500 900. In 1919 the cost Of $314,904;
In 1920, }4S6, $50 and in 1921 Ia year
Of business depression) $S67,2s2.
total Of $l.17s.47e.
The railroad Arrangements declare
chat the employment Of this useless
brakeman Is an unnecessary burden,
ths cost ultimately falling on the pub.
No. They further point to the fact that
ne Federal Government requires auto
oouplers and air brakes on all cars and
prohibits the use Of hand brakes on
trains. This they claim makes unnec
sssary Q third brakeman. They also
say that they are fully competent to
decide the number Of brakemen to be
employed. Indeed they say they fro
qusntly employ extra brakemen IN
cases in which the operating condi'
tons require this employment. They
Also say that this unnecessary burden
leads to high passenger and freight
rates, in which the public is vitality In
tsrested. It 10 not proposed, 1t 10
claimed, to add to unemployment by
Aispensing with the services OF the
surplus brakemen. Repeal OF the law,
they say, does not mean more unem'
ployment, but It means transfer OF
men from useless to useful occupa'
lions in other departments. where the
money can be more probably en-
yloyed in the repair OF locomotives.
tracks, and other essential operations
Pennsylvania and Indiana have al
ready repealed law similar to that
which the Maryland Legislature Is
asked to repeal. West Virginia de.
feated a proposed similar bill in 1921.
Delaware and Virginia have no such
laws. The railroad arrangements there
fore point to the fact that Maryland
stands alone in this territory as the
only State which has regulation that
they claim effects the movement OF
trains between States.
One argument to be urged in favor
of the repeater 10 that freight crews do
not make Up trains in the switch
yar6s