terest manifested by them for the Division and for the Order. It was indeed gratifying to know that the Order of Railway Conductors had such staunch supporters as the Conductors who comprised the elements which attended our meeting.

After the business of the meeting had been carefully disposed of, we adjourned to the hall below our meeting place, there to give the boys a chance to complain to each other of their trials and tribulations, also to partake of the good things which had been provided for them, and I can assure you that they did justice to both. After cigars had been passed all were given an opportunity to show their entertaining qualities.

After the repast the boys settled down to business for the benefit of the Division, formulating ways and means by which we might boom her along, and many good ones I heard, and it brought back to me recollections of the institution of old 169 and its early years, and hope that what I heard would come true, and that is that such good old timers as Charlie Evans, Sanford Dolan and Jeff Thomas were again to become members of the Division, as well as many of the young conductors who belong to the Jersey City terminal of the New York division P. railroad

We missed one at the meeting, and that was Jimmy Curran; but we know very well if he was not there in person he was in spirit, for whether there or not he is losing no opportunities when he can do good for the Division.

And another Brother, whose shoulder is always at the wheel and never misses a meeting, and continually keeps every member he meets interested with something connected with Division or the Order. I mean "Roaring" Bill Connors. You can't beat him. He had to double the road and could not get to the meeting.

Now, my Brothers of 169, keep up the good work, and when we have election of officers in 1903 may our membership be double, and instead of forty-five at the meeting we should have one hundred. OBSERVER.

Jersey City, N. J.

Editor Railway Conductor:

Division 218 held its regular meeting November 23. Much excitement prevailed during the election, when officers for the ensuing year were chosen.

The attendance was unusually large. As my optics alighted on the crowd I was aroused by feelings of regret that we cannot have elections at every meeting, as we would then be assured of having a greater number of members present. Important business was transacted, knotty problems discussed and arranged; on the whole good feeling and fellowship existed throughout the entire meeting.

Brothers, why not attend more frequently? Our meetings are always deeply interesting.

Decided upon calling a special meeting December 22. The installation of officers will take place on that date. To make the occasion doubly interesting, have arranged to invite the

Ladies' Auxiliary, and jointly installing successful candidates, followed by a banquet and a rare collation to feast the fair sex. Their presence in itself is a great feast to us-the rougher element.

Sweethearts, wives and sisters, remember a warm welcome and an enjoyable evening awaits you. Remember the date, two days before the greatest anniversary in history-yuletide. Could a more fitting time be chosen for merriment and pleasure, when all mankind should rejoice?

A cordial invitation was tendered our Grand Chief Conductor, Brother E. E. Clark, to be present. His acceptance will be duly recorded, and his presence add greatly to the evening's enjoyment.

We cannot say too much of our worthy Brother, who is noted for his great integrity, aptitude and ability, some six years ago having figured largely in a great event, serving as one of the arbitrators in a controversy between the Grand Trunk railway and some of its employes: he acquitted himself most creditably and satisfactorily to all interests concerned.

Brother Clark is, at present chairman of the Railway Employes' Federation, and we can proudly assert he is eminently capable and upright, working in unison for both the operators and the labor leaders. He has a difficult and exhaustive commission, requiring time and thought. The President desires its thoroughness, completing a final adjustment of present troubles, and a basis for guarding against future labor troubles.

We expect other talented speakers present on this auspicious occasion, among them Brother Conductors whose witty speeches will create mirth and merriment. In the history of railroad traffic conditions were never so favorable, brisk and profitable. Everything seems flourishing in that line. It is an infrequent occurrence for any of our boys to be without work.

Brothers, we are greatly indebted to our unions for the prosperous condition and advancement of labor existing today.

The United Brotherhood defy trusts and corporations when interfering with the laborers' rights; so again I beg all of you, strengthen our Order; it means everything for our future success and welfare.

Brothers, in the dying embers of the passing year, bury every milestone which existed. With the new year open a fresh volume, and on its unsullied pages write good resolutions; first and foremost to take an active part in the work of our Order.

One of the saddest occurrences of recent date, which cast a pall over the many employes of our road and the far west, was the sad and untimely death of Mr. Eagan, brother of our worthy and esteemed president of the Central railroad.

In the midst of joy, entering the great un. known, how strange the mysterious ways of our benign Providence. We tender our sympathy to our president, John M. Eagan, in his affliction. J. J. BEACH.

Savannah, Ga.

Automatic Couplers.

The dining car, forming part of a train on the Southern Pacific railway, leaving San Francisco for the run to Ogden, where it was ordinarily turned and put into a train going west to San Francisco. In this particular case the east bound train was so late that it was not practicable to get the dining car into Ogden in time to place it in the next west bound train, and it was therefore left on a side track at Promontory, to be picked up by the west bound train when it arrived. While it was standing on this track the conductor of a freight train which arrived there was directed to take this dining car to a turntable, turn it, and place it back upon the side track, so that it would be ready to return to San Francisco. The conductor instructed his crew to carry out this direction. Johnson, a head brakeman, undertook to couple the engine to the dining car for the purpose of carrying out the order of the conductor. The freight engine was equipped with a Janney coupler, which would couple automatically with another Janney coupler, and the dining car was provided with a Miller hook, or Miller coupler, which would couple automatically with another Miller hook, but the Miller hook would not couple automatically with the Janney coupler, because it was on the same side, and would pass over it. Johnson knew this, and undertook to make the coupling by means of a link and pin. He knew that it was a difficult coupling to make, and that it was necessary to get between the engine and the car to accomplish it, and that it was dangerous to do so. Nevertheless he went in between the engine and the car and tried to make the coupling three times without objection or protest. He failed twice, and the third time his hand was caught and crushed so that it became necessary to amputate his arm above the wrist. An action was commenced against the company for damages on account of the injury. A judgment in favor of the defendant rendered in the circuit court of the United States for the District of Utah has just been affirmed by the United States court of appeals. The opinion, which is a very

interesting one, is in substance as follows:

"Under the common law the plaintiff assumed the risks and dangers of the coupling which he endeavored to make, and for that reason he is estopped from recovering the damages which resulted from his undertaking. He was an intelligent and experienced brakeman, familiar with the couplers he sought to join, and with their condition, and well aware of the difficulty and danger of his undertaking, so that he falls far within the familiar rules that the servant assumes the ordinary risks and dangers of the employment upon which he enters, so far as they are known to him, and so far as they would have been known to one of his age, experience and capacity by the use of ordinary care, and that the risks and dangers of coupling cars provided with different kinds of wellknown couplers, bumpers, brakeheads, and deadwoods are the ordinary risks and dangers of a brakeman's service.

"This proposition is not seriously challenged, but counsel base their claim for a reversal of the judgment below upon the position that the plaintiff was relieved of this assumption of risk, and of its consequences, by the provisions of the act of congress of March 2, 1893, (27 Stat. c. 196, p. 531). The title of that act, and the parts of it that are material to the consideration of this contention, are these:

"An act to promote the safety of employes and travelers upon railroads by compelling common carriers engaged in interstate commerce to equip their cars with automatic couplers and continuous brakes, and their locomotives with driving wheel brakes, and for other purposes.

"Section 1. That from and after the first day of January, 1898, it shall be unlawful for any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad to use on its line any locomotive engine in moving interstate traffic not equipped with a power driving wheel brake and appliances for operating the train brake system.

*

*

"Section 2. That on and after the first day of January, 1898, it shall be

unlawful for any such common carrier to, haul or permit to be hauled or used on its line any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without the necessity of men going between the ends of the cars.

"'Section 6. That any such common carrier using any locomotive engine, running any train, or hauling or permitting to be hauled or used on its line any car in violation of any of the provisions of this act shall be liable to a penalty of one hundred dollars for each and every such violation.

*

*

*

"'Section 8. That any employe of any such common carrier who may be injured by any locomotive, car or train, in use contrary to the provisions of this act shall not be deemed thereby to have assumed the risk thereby occasioned, although continuing in the employment of such carrier after the unlawful use of such locomotive, car or train had been brought to his knowledge.'

"The first thought that suggests itself to the mind upon a perusal of this law, and a comparison of it with the facts of this case, is that this statute has no application here, because both the dining car and the engine were equipped as this act directs. The car was equipped with Miller couplers, which would couple automatically with couplers of the same construction upon cars in the train in which it was used to carry on interstate commerce, and the engine was equipped with a power driving wheel brake such as this statute prescribed. To overcome this difficulty, counsel for the plaintiff persuasively argues that this is a remedial statute; that laws for the prevention of fraud, the suppression of a public wrong, and the bestowal of a public good, are remedial in their nature, and should be liberally construed, to prevent the mischief and to advance the remedy, notwithstanding the fact that they may impose a penalty for their violation; and that this statute should be so construed as to forbid the use of a locomotive as well as a car which is not equipped with an automatic coupler."

Space compels us to paragraph the balance of the decision:

The act of March 2, 1893, (27 Stat. c. 196, p. 531), does not make it unlawful for common carriers to use locomotives engaged in interstate commerce which are not equipped with automatic couplers.

A statute changing the common law modifies or abrogates it no farther than the clear import of its language necessarily requires.

A penal statute may not be so broadened by construction as to make it

cover, and authorize the punishment of, otherwise lawful acts, which are not denounced by the usual meaning of its express terms.

A statute which enumerates the parties, things, or acts which it denounces thereby impliedly excludes all others from its effect.

When the language of a statute is unambiguous, and its meaning is plain, it must be held to mean, and the legislative body must be held to have intended, what it plainly expresses, and no room is left for construction.

A servant assumes the ordinary risks and dangers of the employment upon which he enters, so far as they are known to him, and as far as they would have been known to one of his experience, age, and capacity, by the use of ordinary care.

A brakeman of ordinary intelligence and experience assumes the risks and dangers of coupling cars provided with different kinds of well-known couplers, bumpers, and deadwoods, because these are the ordinary risks and dangers of his service.

The equipment, under the act of March 2, 1893, of a car with automatic couplers which will couple automatically with those of the same kind or make, is a compliance with the statute. It does not require cars used in interstate commerce to be equipped with couplers which will couple automatically with cars equipped with automatic couplers of other makes.

Cars loaded with articles shipped to other states, and started. whether in yards, on side tracks, in repair shops, or in trains which are not loaded with, or in use to move articles of, interstate commerce, do not fall within the terms or meaning of the act of March 2, 1893. The dining car standing empty on a side track at an intermediate station, where it had been left by a train engaged in interstate traffic until it should be taken by another train engaged in the same traffic, going in the opposite direction, and which the owner intended to use in interstate traffic was drawn by a freight engine from the side track to the turntable, turned, and placed again upon the side track. Held, that the car was not used in moving interstate traffic while it was on the side track and while it was being turned.

Johnson vs. Southern Pac. Co., 117 Fed. Rep. (U. S.) 462.

In the case of Geo. C. Winkler against the Philadelphia & Reading Railway Company, just decided by the Superior Court of Delaware, the plaintiff claimed that his head brakeman of the shifting crew, which was using shifting engine No. 1242 and its tender in moving and delivering interstate commerce cars at

the siding on the south side of the city, the defendant then and there became a common carrier of passengers and freight; and while coupling the tender to the next car, using the "bull-nose" coupler without fault on his part, his right hand was caught between the couplers, resulting in the loss of three fingers, and otherwise crushing and injuring his hand; that the "bull-nose" coupling on the tender was dangerous and unlawful; that he was inexperienced in the business of a brakeman, and was not warned nor instructed by the defendant as to the risks thereof. The defendant, on the other hand, claimed that the engine and tender were not engaged in moving interstate commerce at the time of the accident, but merely in moving local traffic; that the "bull-nose" used on the tender during that time was necessary in order to safely move cars around sharp curves in the Diamond State Steel Yard, where the automatic couplers would not work, and was a reasonable and safe appliance for such purpose. This decision we paragraph as follows:

"The safety appliance act of congress of March 2, 1893, as amended April 1, 1896, provides that it shall be unlawful for any carrier to haul on its lines any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without men going between the cars; and section 8 provides that any employe injured by any car in use contrary to the act shall not be deemed to have assumed the risk. Held, that in an action for injuries received while coupling a tender to a car, the claim being that the tender was not properly equipped under the act, the burden is on plaintiff to show that the cars in question were being used in moving interstate commerce, and were not properly equipped.

"If the car being moved had come from a point out of the state, it would be moving interstate commerce.

"Though the car to which the tender was being coupled was not used in interstate traffic, the case was within the

statute if the removal of such car was a necessary step in moving an interstate

car.

"The safety appliance act of congress of March 2, 1893, as amended April 1, 1896, provides (section 2) that it shall be unlawful for any carrier to haul on its lines any car used in moving interstate traffic not equipped with automatic couplers coupling automatically by impact, and which can be uncoupled without men going between the cars; and section 8 provides that any employe injured by any car in use contrary to the act shall not be deemed to have assumed the risk. Held, that a locomotive tender is a car within the act.

"In an action for an injury received while coupling a car to a tender the negligence relied on was the necessity of making the coupling with a bull-nose' coupler on a tender. Held, that if the tender at the time of the accident was equipped with automatic cauplers, but that it was so connected with the 'bull-nose' coupler that the coupling with other cars was not made automatically by impact, but it was necessary for men to go between the ends of the cars to couple and uncouple, then the coupling did not comply with the act of congress of March 2, 1893, as amended April 1, 1896, requiring safety couplings, and was unlawful.

"If, however, in using such unlawful coupler, the plaintiff contributed to the accident by his own carelessness, he could not recover, notwithstanding the fact that the coupler was unlawful.

"On a verdict for a servant in an action against the master for injuries the jury should award such sum as will reasonably compensate him for his injuries, including therein his loss of time and wages, his pain and suffering in the past and such as may come in the future, resulting from the accident, and also for such pecuniary loss as, from the evidence, the jury may believe will arise from his diminished ability to earn a living in the future."

Winkler vs. Philadelphia & Reading Ry. Co., 53 At. Rep. (Del.) 90.

EDITOR FORUM:-Please decide the following questions relative to the rights of trains on the night that new card takes effect, 12:01 a. m.

Rule 204 reads: "Each time table, from the moment it takes effect, supersedes the preceding time-table. A train on the preceding time-table shall retain its train orders and take the schedule of the train of the same number on the new time-table. A train of the new timetable which has no corresponding number on the preceding time-table shall not run on any district until it is due to start from its initial point, on that district, after the time-table takes effect. "Trains on each district date from their initial point on such district."

East bound trains have right.

First. A is western district terminal. B an intermediate station east of there. C is eastern district terminal of Second district, and is also western district terminal of First district. D is eastern district terminal of First district. Both districts on one division.

No. 4 is due to leave "A" at 8:45 p. m., "B" 11:59 p. m. "C," arrive 12:30 a. m., depart 12:40 a. m., old card. On new card-"A" 1:50 p. m., "B" 5:07 p. m., "C," arrive, 5:40 p. m., depart, 5:50 Can No. 4 run east of B; if so, p. m. when? If a crew was called at C to take No 4 east, when could they leave there, presuming that No. 4 was annulled A to C, and the train run special scheduled on old No. 4's time?

Second. Same division.

Old Card-No. 6 is due to leave "A" at 12:15 a. m.

New Card--No. 6 is due to leave "A" at 10:25 p. m. Can No. 6 leave "A" before 10:25 p. m. after the new card takes effect? Can she leave "A" at 12:15 a. m. and be considered No. 6 of

the previous date, running one hour and fifty minutes late?

Third. Under the same rule (204) on another division.

A is the eastern division terminal, B an intermediate station west of there, C another intermediate station a few miles west.

Old Card-No. 3 due to leave "A" 9:30 p. m., "B" 9:45 p. m., "C" 10:28 p. m.

New

Card-Leaves "A" 11:05 p. m., "B" 11:22 p. m., "C" 12:05 a. m.

No. 3 leaves "A” on time, breaks down at "B" and is delayed until 12:10 a. m. on the night that a new card takes effect. How can he get out of "B;" Must he flag to "C?" If he does, can he run as No. 3 from "C" or can he proceed from "B" when ready at 12:10 a. m., and run as No. 3 of previous date, considered to be two hours and twentyfive minutes late, or could he be No. 3 on new card and considered forty-seven minute late. If this fellow flagged to "C" and took No. 3's time from there, he would be No. 3 of what date?

Does date cut any figure whenever the night time-card changes?

Can a train run twelve hours (more or less) late on old card after new card takes effect?

Trains lose their rights when twelve hours or more late. "B." Spokane, Wash.