The Republican. [volume] (Oakland, Md.) 1877-current, 1922-02-02
ASK REPEAL Of
FULL CREW LAW
POINT OUT UNNECESSARY BUR-
DEN ON COMPANIES oPERAT.
ING IN MARYLAND AND
THE PUBLIC.

Annapolis, Md-In the State Senate
Mr.. Mitchell has introduced a Bill
70 repeal the so-called full crew law,
which was referred to the committee
on judicial proceedings and arrange
ments. will be made at an early date
Tor a hearing on the measure. Pres
ident Broening of the Baltimore Fed
Grafton Of Labor and his colleagues
are already on the scene to oppose the
enactment.
The law was enacted in 1908. 1t re-
oures the railroads to man all freight
trains of thirty or more cars with six
men, l engineer, l fireman, l con-
ductor and brakemen, one of the last
being designated as a fagman though
really assigned to the duties of a
brakeman. The railroads claim that
this crew comprises one more brake
man than they need. 1t effects the
Baltimore & Ohio, the 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
same extent as the other roads. The
object of the repeal bill is to effect econ
omy in the management Of railroad
property. During the last ten years
when the law has been in active effect
It has cost the Baltimore &; Ohio. the
Pennsylvania and the Western Mary
land Railroad companies about 81
100000 In 1919 the cost of $314,9O4;
In 1920, $496,S90 and in 1921 Ga year
Of business Depression $367282, q
total of $1,179,476
The railroad arrangements declare
chat the employment of this useless
brakeman is an unnecessary burden,
the cost ultimately falling on the pub
nc. They further point to the fact that
the Federal Government requires auto
cOuplers and air brakes on all cars and
prohibits the use of hand brakes on
trains. This they claim makes unnec-
essary a third brakeman. They also
say that they are fully competent to
decide the number of brakemen to be
employed. Indeed they say they fire..
Quently employ extra brakemen in
cases in which the operating condi-
tions require this employment They
Also say that this unnecessary burden
leads to high passenger and freight
rates in which the public is vitality in
terested. 1t is not proposed. it is
claimed, to add to unemployment by
dispensing with the services of the
surplus brakemen Repeal Of the law,
they say. does not mean more unem-
ployment, but it means a transfer Of
men from useless to useful Occupa-
lions in other departments where the
money can be more prof,ably en-
ployed in the repair Of locomotives,
tracks, and other essential operations.
Pennsylvania and Indiana have al.
ready repealed a 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 managements 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 is that freight crews do
not make up trains in the switch
yards.