ganizations went to the legislatures of different States and demanded that all restrictions be removed, and in some sections of the country they have been removed. A man may recover five, ten, fifteen or twenty thousand dollars, the whole matter being left to the discretion of the jury. If two men are working together for a common employer, and one injures the other, the injured one, or his relatives, may sue the employer and recover any amount of damages that the jury sees fit to give under the circumstances. The removal of that limitation makes personal injury claims more diffi cult to settle in States where that law exists. Suppose you hire two men to paint your house; one of them negligently kicks over the ladder and breaks the leg of the other. The man injured goes into court and recovers a judgment against you, although you may not have had a thing to do with the accident. The court makes you pay for the conduct of the other man. That is the state of the law in Colorado at this present time. When you get these statutes wiped out, which prescribe certain limitations defining where there can be a recovery and where not, you then greatly increase the claims against corporations and necessarily increase the difficulties of the claim agent in taking care of them.

MR. SCHLACKS: I would like to ask Mr. Whitted if that rule of law does not increase the responsibility of the co-employe? Also, if a man had a wreck on the Santa Fe and then changed to the Colorado and Southern, if the C. & S. would not be encouraged to blacklist that man, on account of knowing the carelessness that that man showed on other roads.

MR. WHITTED: Well, I don't know. I think the fellow-servant law ought to increase the feeling of responsibility on the part of employes, but I doubt if it will. I do not think the railroad ought to blacklist a man without a good deal of caution, but there is such a thing as a constitutionally indifferent and reckless man. I am frank to say that I think that man ought to be blacklisted; I think the railroad ought to state the reason why the man was discharged, not only for the good of the railroads, but also for the good of employes on other railroads. The railroad also owes a duty to the traveling public. If a railroad company should be sued for an accident that happened by reason of the carelessness of such a man, and it could be shown in court that he was known to be careless

and was employed with a knowledge of that fact, the railroad company would be held responsible. It is no advantage to the railroad employes themselves to protect men of that character.

MR. WELLS: I have been very much interested in this paper, and it seems to me there is a great deal to be gotten out of it. I want to discuss blacklisting. When Mr. Parker has hired a man, and I want to hire that man, and the law comes in and says I have no right to talk to Mr. Parker, and Mr. Parker has no right to give me any information about that man, where are we? What does it mean? Where is the liberty that some of our people are talking so much about? Another thing I have been very much impressed with this evening, and that is the lack of care; that is the keynote of the whole proposition. In all problems that arise in railroads it is more a question of care than anything else. We were on the oil question for a long time, and when a locomotive had a hot-box, the remedy was more oil. But afterwards it was discovered that a little bit of care was better than more oil. We are be

ginning to discover that a little bit of care is a necessity in all cases.

MR. ROESCH: In speaking about blacklisting I desire to take exception to some of the remarks made here. I do not believe in it. I do not believe it is right to blacklist any one, no matter what his crime may be, no matter what he has done. I do not believe in following him from one part of the country to another. This blacklisting system gives too many opportunities for one man who is prejudiced to vent his animosity on another. We are all inclined to be a little bit

careless from top to bottom. The reason I make this statement is that I had occasion to examine a clearance of an engineer the other day, who, I know, is as irresponsible a party as could be placed on an engine. He is an habitual drunkard. He had a clearance card stating he was discharged for going to sleep on the caller; character and conduct generally good. Now, if I had not been personally acquainted with this man, and knew his record for the past ten years, I would certainly have employed him. Now, who is the guilty party? Is it this man, or the man who gives him his clearance? I think the better way to adjust these matters would be to take the "Brown System of Discipline," in which every man's record is kept. When a man leaves the service of a company give him

an impression copy of the record; that should be his clearance. There you have the man's acts for all the time that he was in the employ of the company. If his conduct and general character were good it should be so stated on his record. If it is such that we could not employ him it should be stated in that way. Then the employer takes no chances on the man he is employing; but, as I stated before, where an official, knowing the character of a man, will deliberately issue a clearance card like that (now, that was a fact; I read the card myself), I think there is something wrong. The reason of this was the man was a personal friend of his. A man who will do that to a close personal friend will follow a man he did not like to the end of the earth.

MR. WELLS: I would like to ask Mr. Whitted if clearance cards are not brought out by the anti-blacklisting laws. There is nothing in these laws but what should be there that is, if we tell the truth, and the man tells the truth. Supposing one of these cards says the man was drunk, and he is unable to get employment. He turns around and says the company blacklisted him; that is the trouble. That is the reason these men get cards, saying they went to sleep on the caller, or had some little trouble.

MR. WHITTED: I will not say that in some cases the statutes provide that an employer shall not state anything in a clearance card that will prevent a man from getting employment. Under these circumstances it would be dangerous to give an employe any kind of a card, even if he stated the truth, for, if he was unable to get employment, he would say that the clearance was not true, and the party issuing it had prevented him from getting work. I have talked with a good many managers and superintendents, and I have yet to find one who approved of trying to blacklist anybody. There is a difference between maliciously blacklisting a man and simply stating to your neighbor, when he applies to you, the reason you discharged the employe. Nobody defends malicious blacklisting.

MR. ROESCH: Would not the Supreme Court of any State have a right to pronounce that fellow-servant law illegal, or could not they give a decision against that law?

MR. WHITTED: No, sir, I think the court has no right to do that. I do not believe there is a man sitting here that feels there is any reason in that law. What I submit to you is, is it fair to

make a man pay for an injury to one employe caused by the negligence of his fellow-employe, when the man who causes the injury violates a plain rule or order of his employer?

MR. PARKER: Before closing the argument, I am going to ask Mr. Doolittle, who has handled claims a good many years on the Missouri Pacific and the Colorado and Southern, whether there is any possible way of keeping claims under this very method, which Mr. Whitted has brought out continually in his conversation tonight, namely, by keeping claims showing those who have been injured by the neglect of a fellow-employe, and those who have been injured by their own act.

MR. DOOLITTLE: I would say that the record will very clearly show about 75 to 80 per cent. of accidents are either due directly or indirectly to the negligence of the men operating the trains. There are cases, of course, where the appliances are in bad order; where there was a lack of inspection, and I think we can keep a record that will bring these cases under a proper heading for analysis at any time, but we do not do it at present.

MR. PARKER: The point that I make is this: Can you keep a record of those who are killed by the negligence of a fellow-employe and those who are killed by their own negligence? It is not a question of the killing of employes, being 75 per cent. compared with outside people, but what is the percentage of individuals who are killed by the negligence of other employes?

MR. DOOLITTLE: I say we can, but we do not keep such a record, because we have not all the facts of the case before

us.

MR. WHITTED: What is the proportion of accidents that happen from pure negligence?

MR. DOOLITTLE: I would say 80 per cent. at least from pure negligence; that is, directly or indirectly; either due to a man's own negligence or to the negligence of some fellow-servant. I do not like the word negligence as applied to employes. I think employes are more heedless than they are negligent. I think an employe often gets into the habit of doing things, and he becomes heedless, and the more experienced the employe, the more chances he takes, and when he finally finds himself in the place of danger, it is too late to extricate himself; so the most serious injuries among employes, as a rule, are with the old men in the service. I think that applies especially

to coupling cases. An experienced man will take a chance that a green man would not take; would not know how to take; and I think we might, with profit to our company and to many other companies, take a little more pains in classifying these accidents. But it requires a good deal of time to do it, and I think we might show under these different heads where the money goes. Of course, my statement to you of 80 per cent. of the accidents being from negligence, is an offhand statement, but that would be my impression from handling these claims.

MR. SCHLACKS: I would like to know where the accidents caused by negligence would stop? Is not everything-eyery accident-due to negligence? Is not everything which is not an act of God, an act of negligence?

MR. WHITTED: What I defined as something due to pure negligence is a case such as I illustrated, where a brakeman failed to flag the following train. Now, that could not possibly be classified with those due to defective appliances. The brakes were all right; the engine was all right; the track was all right; the accident was simply the act of the brakeman; he did not attend to flagging the following train. That is an act of pure negligence.

MR. SCHLACKS: Supposing a company had adopted the block system?

MR. WHITTED: That possibly would have prevented it, but we have not the block system in Colorado. We have not the money at the present time. We might, by abolishing crossings, by abolishing overhead obstructions, by double tracking and by the use of the block system, reduce accidents to some extent. Of course, you can go ahead with an unlimited expense and prevent some accidents, but you could not now get money enough out here in this part of the country to make all of these improvements.-Rocky Mountain Railway Club.

Of course in a number of cases the signals were not at fault, but the failure of the engineer to obey the signals is no reason that signal engineers should not go deeper into the subject with the view of devising some aid, mental or mechanical, that will tend to force attention and obedience to signals. We all know the mental effect upon the engineer of an open derail ahead of a displayed home signal and that it is generally sufficient to enforce obedience to the signal. This prompts the inference that there may be other devices or disciplinary methods to accomplish the same end with block signals; and towards this it would be well to direct our efforts. The efficacy of the derail seems to depend on two factors, viz. the threatened danger to person and property and the discipline following certainty of detection.

During 1902 in Illinois there were 138 derailments at interlocking plants due to trains running against signals. There is here food for reflection; for if trains run against signals when derailment is the penalty, we must infer that a much larger number is run where there is no penalty or detection except in case of disaster.

May it not be that the engineer who allows his engine to be derailed does so through a certain carelessness in his nature, developed by continued disregard of signals where there is no penalty attached? Can we not prevent this by devising some complete check on all signals and make the penalty of disobeying them adequate? A man values his honor above position. Can we not make the penalty dishonor and of such a force as to have more weight than loss of position?

Discussion seems often to be centered on the "Automatic Stop," but here we encounter the danger of the engineer shifting part of his personal responsibility to the device, and the question is, should we be any nearer attaining the result sought.

It is stated that English railways using the block system have succeeded in almost absolutely preventing collisions; that

Stop Signals.

PRESIDENT HOPE: It is manifest that the recent epidemic of steam railroad disasters and the censuring verdicts of coroners' juries have focused public criticism on the railroad companies, and it is incumbent on this club to duly consider the art of signaling in its relation to these accidents and to devise practical preventive measures.

with unvarying fidelity, whereas American engineers have shown a frequent disregard of signals that is difficult to explain. May this not follow from the fact that in England signals are the ordinary, not extraordinary, method of handling trains? Engine runners grow up under these conditions, whereas in the United States most railroads have only a small proportion of their roads signaled. I wish to urge the careful thought and ef

fort of each individual member. Even a suggestion may assist us to accomplish what we have set about to do.

MR. H. M. SPERRY: In automatic block signaling we omit the overlap as soon as we provide the distant signal. The question is whether we are right in doing that. If a following train overruns the home signal there may be a collision. Would it not be better to introduce the overlap. Make it such length as you please, determined by speed, grade, etc., so that with a train stopped with the signal immediately in its rear, we would hold at danger the home signal one section farther back. If the next train should overrun, it would have the full length of the block to run before it would

cause a collision. We know that men do overrun signals for various reasons. Now, are we asking the operating department too much in saying to them that they must invariably stop at a home signal horizontal and not go even 100 feet beyond it?

MR. W. H. ELLIOTT (by letter): When a distant signal is used in connection with the home signal, I think that in view of the recent accidents that have happened where automatic signals have been run by, that the overlap is a very necessary safeguard. While there are few or no automatic systems that have the overlap and the distant signal, the C., M. & St. P. from the first automatic signals installed has used the overlap and the distant signal. On the same principle that a space is always provided between a home signal and a derail, a space is needed be tween an automatic home signal and the potential fouling point ahead, which is the rear car of the supposed standing train. At the St. Louis meeting, two years ago, said Mr. Elliott, the weight of opinion was against the use of the overlap; but the C., M. & St. P. is satisfied that it should be used and that it is worth the additional cost. Near a large terminal, where no distant signals are provided, the overlap is made 1,500 feet; with automatic block sections two miles or three miles long, and provided with distant signals, the overlap is made 1,000 feet. With block sections of less than 1.5 miles the overlap is made 600 feet long. The Milwaukee road now has distant signals at one place 3,000 feet back from the home signal and another is soon to be put in which will be 4,000 feet distant; a separate post is used, if necessary.

MR. SPERRY: The length of the overlap, in my opinion, depends upon the

speed and grade, with some consideration, possibly, of the length of cut sections.

MR. W. H. LANE: By the introduction of the overlap, are not we introducing an uncertainty in the engineer's mind, as to exactly where he must stop? And does not an uncertainty introduce an element of danger? If an engineer knows he must stop at every signal, and can not run by it a foot, I think discipline can be carried out much more easily than if we allow him to run a certain unstated distance beyond the signal.

MR. WILEMAN: It seems to me the introduction of the overlap is too much like removing a derail. It lessens the necessity for stopping at the signal.

MR. ROSENBERG: An engineman comes along running as second section and gets signal A clear; then he comes to B and the block is clear, but the overlap holds signal B against him. Under the rules he is obliged to stop, unless you allow the four-mile-an-hour rule. He will stop there, and after starting a train of seventy-five cars, perhaps with a breakin-two thrown in, and he comes to the next signal and he is held again, because the train is either in this block or the block ahead. I had the pleasure yesterday of going over our line with a representative of the London and Northwestern, a gentleman in charge of signaling on that line. He brought up this same but he did not believe in the overlap. question that Mr. Sperry has advanced; He asked, however, why we should not have two entire blocks between our trains, that is, A not to clear until the train has passed C. If we take the stand that an overlap is allowable, I think that we rather put ourselves in the position of admitting that an engineman can not stop at a signal. Our enginemen stop from any speed, and whatever the weather, even on a winter's night, when they approach a plug at which they should take water; there is no light on the water plug, either. They know the location. The whole thing can be summed up in a nutshell-tell the engineman, if you run by a signal, the discipline will be dismissal. We will not suspend you, pat you on the back and say, "You are a good engineman, don't do it again." I don't believe in that. I know of a railroad which will fire a man the first time he is caught running by a signal, and I am happy to say that most satisfactory results have followed from this rigid discipline. Very few enginemen have ever been discharged for this reason.

MR. SPERRY: You can not be sure that the best runner on the road will not have some little thing happen which will prevent him from stopping. If you could guard against such contingencies I would say there is no use in the overlap. We are not going to tell them can run by the signal post. We right at that signal, not one foot further are going to say, "You must stop there, than that signal;" and we will introduce Mr. Rosenberg's method of finding out whether they do or do not stop at the

they

the rule is that a second train shall not be accepted unless the preceding train has gone 400 yards beyond the home signal; so by that means we provide what you may call an overlap of 200 to 400 yards. This question of overlap for automatic signals has already arisen in our country. On the London and Southwestern an installation of six miles has been fitted with automatic signals. These sections are one mile in length and there is no overlap, but the Board of Trade have not approved definitely of these works. They are waiting to see the result of this and the Northeastern installations before they decide as to whether the overlap is necessary and advisable. It has been said here that on a certain road

in America it is the practice to "fire" an engineer if he passes a danger signal. That is an excellent practice, and is one which we follow in the old country. A driver found guilty of passing a signal at danger is discharged. I admit that it seems nice to arrange so that in case a driver should overrun a signal there should be some little distance for him to pull up in; but the question is, if he will ignore the distant signal and the home signal, may he not go still further and ignore the overlap also? Is it not better to educate your drivers to feel that if they pass a stop signal at danger they are liable to get into collision with another train, and therefore is not the overlap a thing that should be eliminated?

MR. ADAMS: Mr. Rosenberg has spoken of an ideal road (I suppose it is his own), where the enginemen have been told that if they run by a stop signal it goes hard with them; if they are discovered they are discharged. Now, how are they discovered?

troduce that to stop the trains at that signal, and we will discipline the men and "fire" them if they do not stop at the signal; but sometimes things will happen when it does not do much good to fire the engineman-it is a little bit too late.

Speaking of the derail, it is usually placed right at the signal, and it gives

the man no chance. Hence we hear of 138 cases in a year in Illinois of overrunning the signal. That means these men failed in 138 cases to stop at the signal. Some only went a few feet by, but they were caught on the derail. When we put in the derail to discipline men we admit at once that we are not able by normal methods to maintain discipline. All I claim for the overlap is that it is a precaution; it is not necessary if the men can be depended on to stop. It is, however, very necessary if there is any chance of the men running by the signal. The English railroads have recognized that they must have the overlap in their present system, and they do not clear the block in the rear until the train has passed the advance signal. We have taken chances because we have a good air brake, but sometimes the brake is not put on at the right time; in such cases it is good to have the overlap.

MR. AMES: If the discipline is such that the runner is taught the proper significance of a red signal, ought not one to be to him as good as a dozen? Does not the thing boil itself down largely to an interpretation of the distant signal? It seems to me that if the runner is properly trained as to what the distant signal means, there will be very few cases of his approaching the home signal at a speed which would make any overlap