like yourself, for instance, or Brother Veritas, or Brother Kellogg, and everybody thinking alike, of course, where would I have been? Easy enough to guess, I should think. See the point?

Brother S. Purple, you are on the right track. Yes, what, indeed, are we going to do with our old Brothers? They are with us, and have come to stay, and what makes the matter more serious, their number is increasing every day. If one will stop to think about it he will discover that it has not been so very many years since the old conductor first made his appearance, at least in any considerable numbers. Anyone will readily see the reason for this. You do not need to go back more than forty years to find the reason for it. Comparatively speaking, railroads were in their infancy at that time and but few conductors were needed to man them. Today, however, it is very different, and no doubt we have several thousand who are very near the "retiring line" and many who are past that line, and some have already had to walk the plank of dismissal. I know this to be a fact, as it has come right into my own territory. On the first of November, last, there were nearly 200 men taken out of service on the Lake Shore alone. Three of them are old members of our Order and have been in the service of the company from forty to fifty years. We have other members who are past the age limit (70), and are looking for their "ticket of leave" every day now, besides many more who have but a very few years left them to work.

I have asked the advice of our President, Brother Garretson, and have his reply, and if I had his permission I would give it to the readers, but I would much prefer that he give you the benefit of his views himself, and will ask him to do so, along the same lines that he favored me. I think, however, that he will not object to my quoting him this far. He says in part: "Officially, I am not, as you know, a lover of the pension idea, but individually, when I consider the case of an old man who has given a lifetime of service to the betterment of his company and has now reached the age where he is turned into the pasture for the rest of his life, I can see how strongly the length of the grass is going to appeal to him as a factor in what remains of his future." Brother Garretson then follows with his reason for officially being "no lover of the pension idea," and I must confess to thinking just as he does on the subject. So I ask again, what are we to do with (for) our old Brothers?

Just at present I am doing all I can for the men I have the honor to represent. Nearly three years ago, at a conference I was having with Mr. W. C. Brown, senior vice-president of the New York Central Lines, our general manager, Mr. D. C.

Moon, being present, among other matters under discussion, Mr. Brown gave us an outline of a pension plan which he had worked out and which, he said, the directors told him to put into effect. His plan would be very satisfactory, if made effective, but it has not been, so far as any one knows, at least. I have had a meeting with our general manager and I find his sympathies wholly with the men he has been ordered to take out of the service, but he assures me that he is not in a position to promise them one cent in the way of pension, though he has recommended it as strongly as he could. He also thought Mr. Brown's plan of pension was to go into effect, as I did, but why it has not, he is just as much in the dark as I am. It is my purpose to visit Mr. Brown, also the board of directors, if necessary, and very likely before this reaches you, I shall have found out something definite as to their plans.

I would not have wearied you with our personal troubles but for the fact that I know similar conditions must exist in many other localities, and to emphasize the fact that something should and must be done for our old Brothers. I most earnestly hope that when the Grand Division meets in Boston next May, this matter will be given careful consideration and some plan work out which will be a credit to our Order.

Brother Veritas, i could not close this letter without congratulating you on your evident change of heart. Heretofore in your assertions that the Order was "in a weak and defenseless condition," you have never prefixed the saving clause that you do in your ex' natory note with which you commence your letter in the December number. Permit me to quote it. You say, "some months ago I remarked, in the columns of the CONDUCTOR, that, in some respects the Order of Railway Conductors is in a weak and defenseless condition." That clause has never appeared in any of your letters before. If it had, there would have been no argument about the matter between you and I. I will admit, for the sake of harmony, that "in some respects" we are weak, though not defenseless. We are weak in having a few weak members-men who are so short-sighted that they are unable to see beyond the limits of their own door-yards, and because of the filth there, they think every door-yard in North America is in the same condition. This is undoubtedly wrong.

You ask for proofs to show that your assertions, already quc .d, are not true. You evidently forget that you have the affirmative side of the question, and, according to the highest courts in the land (which you are so fond of referring to), have decided that the burden of proof rests on you. First of all, I should like to have you prove that

the two men discharged on the L. & N. by Mr. Adair and Mr. Scott were discharged for being members of their respective organizations. Your bare assertion to that effect, or theirs ither, for that matter, is not sufficient evidence. For my part, I do not believe it. If it is true, what became of all the other members of those organizations? You do not mention the fact that they were discharged also. No, the day has passed when any railroad official will discharge an employe just because he joins an organization; there is always some other reason that the victim does not tell you about.

Now then, Brother Veritas, you have given me a "bully good" roasting this time, and no mistake. I presume our Brothers who read your letter will have a good laugh over it, but I will bet you a new hat that not one of them will laugh any more heartily over it than I have, and Mrs. Newton, also. She says, "I told you so." I am very much obliged to you for your kind words, especially regarding my plan for representation at Grand Division. I hope others will think the same. Buffalo, N. Y.

A. V. NEWTON.

EDITOR RAILWAY CONDUCTOR:

In the December issue of the CONDUCTOR appeared communications from Division III, of Los Angeles, Cal., credited to M. B. Hamble, of Los Angeles, which signature is erroneous arising from a misunderstanding as to the communicant. Brother Hamble had nothing to do with the correspondence, but the Secretary and Treasurer of Division III is responsible for the information imparted on the progress of the Hamble case and wishes to correct the impression as to the authorship of the former writing, due to an error on the part of the copyist, no doubt. Division III is greatly interested in the case and wished the friends throughout the country to share the knowledge, and does not wish to do anything prejudicial to

his cause.

Division III will soon move into its new home in the Temple of Art, Grand Avenue, between Seventh and Eighth streets. Should any of the Brothers visit the City of Angels, the yellow cars take you to the door, and we will be pleased to welcome you on the first and third Saturday evenings of each month. It is our endeavor to live up to our motto.

Well, Brothers, in the "merry month of May," representatives of our organization will foregather in Boston, the home of the baked bean, and the hub of intellectuality, and we who stay at home will intrust our interests into the hands of the elect who make the pilgrimage and ask that they give good account of their stewardships, hoping they will not promote the aristocratic club idea, but do some work for the freight conductor, the yard man forced out of train

service by the fortunes of the day. We will ask that the "old man" be given a show along with the beginner, the student, who is more able, physically, to care for himself. Give the former a chance to earn his living, too, by seeking to influence the railway commission and the officers of the railroad corporations to consider that lots of good men wear glasses-men who have had actual experience and whose brains ought to be worth a great deal to the companies.

Does it not look as though the Order was pretty hard pushed for members when three months is made the time of service necessary for eligibility to membership, and is it not unjust that one man may overrule a membership of fifty on accepting a man who has had three years' experience as a conductor, but who unfortunately is a yard employe? It does seem, at times, that the Brothers "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel."

Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for the courtesy of a correction of the Hamble signature in the former communication, and regretting the error, Division III and its Secretary and Treasurer, W. C. Rall, send you and all the Brothers greetings. Los Angeles, Cal. WM. CARY RALL.

EDITOR RAILWAY CONDUCTOR :

I am not the official correspondent for my Division, but I herewith appoint myself as such for my system, the Live Oak, Perry & Gulf Ry., for I don't suppose the correspondent of Division 196 knows that we are on the map; but we are, just the same. Though we are not quite as long as some of them, we re just as broad, and still better, we are one hundred per cent O. R. C.; also the brakies are the same per cent B. R. T. Can any of you beat that?

Well, as the name of the road shows, we all run from Live Oak to the Gulf of Mexico. In reality we are not quite there, though some sixty miles in that direction, and about thirty miles more will put us to St. Marks, and then we will have reached the Gulf and the second oldest port in the state of Florida (St. Augustine being the oldest). We also have one seventeen-mile branch on which we have just resumed construction after about eighteen months' suspension (the panic, you know), and hope to soon be running trains into St. Marks.

Our freight haul is about ninety per cent naval stores and lumber. The third electric saw mill in America is located at Alton, Fla., the terminus of our branch. Hampton Springs, a fine mineral springs resort, is at present the terminus of our main line -that is not the end of the line, but is as far west as schedule trains run. Dowling Park is another mineral springs resort on our line, seventeen miles west of Live Oak, where we cross the world's famous Suwaunee river. A. A. KIGHT.

Live Oak, Fla.

Liability of Railroad for Injury to One on Station Platform by Torpedo.

On November 21, 1905, the plaintiff, while standing in front of the defendant's passenger station at Waycross, was severely injured by the explosion of two railway torpedoes run over by a passing locomotive. He was intending to take a train for Jacksonville, Fla., which, according to the published schedule, left Waycross at 6:20 a. m., but which he thought left at 6 o'clock. He had spent the night sitting up with a sick friend near the station. At about 4:30 o'clock he left the friend's house and walked across to the ticket office, and, finding that closed, he went into the restaurant connected with the station, ate a sandwich and drank a cup of coffee; this taking about fifteen minutes. He went out to the front of the building, upon a gravel walkway, over which passengers walked from the waiting rooms to the ticket office, restaurant, etc. He had started to the white waiting room, but stopped on the walkway and engaged in conversation with another gentleman. While they were thus standing talking, in front of the waiting room, about seven or eight feet from the tracks, an engine passed and exploded two torpedoes immediately in front of them. The explosion made considerable noise, and a piece of the metal covering in which the explosive substance was contained, struck the plaintiff, one piece piercing his eye, another making a wound upon his stomach, and still another going into his leg. It was against the rules of the company to put them out in the yards around

stations, though they were occasionally exploded there. The yards of the defendant company at Waycross are extensive and contain a large number of tracks around and adjacent to its passenger station. It has lines of railroad coming into this station from five different directions-from Savannah, Brunswick, Jacksonville, Montgomery, and Albany-and it also handles trains from a branch of the Atlanta, Birmingham & Atlantic railroad through the same yards. The restaurant and usually the waiting rooms are kept open all night.

The negligent presence of the explosives in the front of the passenger station where the presence of persons might be expected is the gist of the present action. If the torpedoes were placed there by outsiders, it was not a case for the operation of statutory presumption. If they were placed or dropped there by employes, it was such a case. The burden of proving that they were placed there by an employe was therefore upon the plaintiff; and we suppose that the trial judge granted the non-suit on the theory that the plaintiff had not shown that they were placed or dropped there by an employe of the defendant company.

Under all the circumstances shown, we think that the plaintiff proved enough to make a prima facie case, such a case as to raise an issue for submission to the jury. The torpedoes were there as a result of an act deliberate or negligent either of the company's employes or of some outsider. They were upon premises controlled by the defendant. This is of some evidentiary value, though slight. These torpedoes

were a special contrivance designed for and used peculiarly in railway service. Nobody else had any business with them, and especially, had no right to place them on the company's tracks. An outsider, however, might have bought, found, or stolen them, and might have put them on the track. Let us examine the time, place, and other circumstances to see if this is reasonable. The time was 4 o'clock, before dawn, on a winter morning. The place was in the yards of the defendant, where its employes were on duty making up and shifting trains of cars, and was in front of the passenger station, some of the rooms of which were lighted and open. Say that the object of the outsider was sport or mischievous prank. Is it probable that anyone would previously furnish himself with two torpedoes, and then go to this open place on the premises of the railway company in the late hours of a winter night to hear them explode, or to witness the results of their explosion? Such things are not usually done that

way.

If the outsider's purpose was sinister, he would hardly have chosen so open a location for the place of his offense, and would hardly have used a caution signal as a means of committing it. This theory seems unreasonable. The deliberate act of an outsider seems improbable. An unintentional dropping of two torpedoes in such a man

ner that both of them should fall on the top of the rail and balance themselves and remain there would be even more unlikely. On the other hand, if the employes for some purpose in hand connected with the moving of the trains in the yard had found it more convenient to use torpedoes for a signal instead of the ordinary means of signaling, the very fact that there was a rule against using them in the yards would be a reason why they would choose to use them there only in the dark hours of the morning, when the violation of the rule would be the least likely of detection. The presence of a single torpedo would not make so strong a case against the employes as does the fact that there were two of them. In the first place, one would serve any probable purpose of an outsider as well as two; on the other hand, the arrangement of two torpedoes is a regular train signal, such as an employe would give and an engineer would recognize. While a plaintiff, who relies upon circumstantial evidence for the establishment of the case must raise more than a mere suspicion, and must reasonably establish the theory relied upon, yet in the present case there was more than "a mere scintilla of inconclusive circumstances"-there was "scope for legitimate reasoning by the jury."

Smith vs. Atlantic Coast Line Ry. Co., (Ga.) 62 S. E. Rep. 1020.

FORUM

OF STANDARD

TRAIN RULES

Notice.

In submitting questions to this department the editor requests that whenever possible the letters of the alphabet be used in their regular order to designate stations as they follow in sequence and the situation is much more readily understood by our readers than when station names are used.

EDITOR FORUM-Please print in the CONDUCTOR your decision on the following order:

No. 629, Eng. 9305, has right over No. 630 (east-bound trains have right by direction) from N. C. tower to Foster Avenue. No. 625, Eng. 7630, has right over No. 630 N. C. tower to Tyne, No. 632 to Foster Avenue. No. 625 overtakes 629 at Tyne tied up for 632. Can 629 and 625 arrange with each other and go to Foster Avenue for 630 and 632? And why cannot 630 and 632 arrange with each other and go to Tyne for 629 and 625? E. S. BATES.

ANSWER-If Tyne and Foster Avenue are non-telegraph stations, it is possible that the crews might, "after proper consultation," decide as outlined in the above letter as the words "after proper consultation" are very indefinite and will permit of most any insinuation. I am free to say that I do not know just what limitation is intended or just what scope is permitted, if any, by the words "after proper consultation." I think that in each case the overtaking train should have right or schedule which would permit them to proceed without the aid of

any right or schedule held by the leading train. It is therefore my opinion that in the case mentioned all four trains would be tied up.

I have always considered revised Rule 94 a dangerous rule, and I am firmly of the opinion that the rule should not be used in its present form.

I would like to have an expression of opinion from my readers as to whether or not they consider these trains tied up.

EDITOR FORUM-Plea give your opinion on the following:

Order No. 73.—To train No. 801 at Springfield, and train No. 802 at Salem. No. 801 will run extra, Springfield to Switch No. 5, Munroe.

No. 802 will run extra, Salem to Springfield.

Extra 802, east, will meet extra 801, west, at Switch No. 5, Munroe.

When extra 801, west, arrived at Munroe, it found extra 802, east, not there, and they received the following order:

Order No. 79.-Train No. 801 will run extra Munroe to Salem.

Would you go to Salem on Order No. 79, or wait at Munroe until extra 802 arrived there?

Golden, Colo.

W. C. ULAAS.

ANSWER-If the dispatcher was well posted on train rules I would go, but if not, I would want to know of him what he expected me to do. In other words, it is wise to take the safe course and run no risks.