Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page

---=---------_----THE HOURS…

News
Cite
Share

-=-- THE HOURS OF RAILWAY SERVANTS. :THF, CAMBRIAN RAILWAY. The Select Committee appointed by the House of Commons to inquire into the hours of labour of railway servants met igain on Thursday afternoon, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach presiding. Further evidence with regard to the Cambrian Railway was taken. Mr Conacher, formerly general manager to the Cam- brian Railway, oout-.uued his evidence. He said, in reference to Stationmaster Hood's evidence as to his being a marked man," that Hood was the only ser- vant of the Company connected with the working of the trains who got leave of absence during the Bank Holiday week. Then, as to Hood's statement that he and his clerk "had to do the clerical work at another station, constantly going between the two stations," witness said the work in question was undertaken voluntarily by Hood 16 dayu before he euve evidence before the committee. He produced a letter from Hood offering to do the work. Witn ess then referred to Mr Hood's statement that Mr Co.acher treated me in such a cruel manner that I could not depend on his word." That (said witness) if a ttflneral charge. If it had been a specific charge I might have been able to meet it b) corres- pondence, but I can only ask the Committee to allow me to say that I give to that general charge the most unqualified and absolute denial. I say, further, that I have treated Hood with the greatest kindness and consideration, and have here a letter, dated March 9th. 1889. which Hood wrote after the arrangements for his removal from Eilesmere to Montgomery had been entered into, which he says I now desere to express to you my most sincere thanks for the kind consideration yon have given to my case, and tn say I will do all I can, wherever I may b. sent to, to pro- mote the company's interests, to the best of my ability." The words sincere and "beat thanks" are underlined. By the Chairman—Stokes, the guard, could not have made a mistake about the night he wau on duty at Eilesmere (November 4th, 1887), because first of all his handwriting appeared in the block telegraph book of that night kept by the man on duty, and in the second place the foreman At Oswestry entered in his book his having sent Stokes to Ellesmere that night. By Sir George Trevelyan.—The fact of Hood having applied to the Committee for his railway fare was not known o the directors until after he was dismissed. Therefore that could not have had anything to do with his dismissal. Hood was not Ciuss-exainmed at the Crewe inttTview on bis statement to the Com- mittee that the Eilesmere accident was caused by the rotten state of -tie permanent way. Beyond witness endeav Juring to remind him that he had said the same thi'lg just after the accident, but Hood denied that, at.d w itne.sii had a letter written by Hood a week after the accident, in which he attributed the accident to the points having been tampered with. The practice of some men working for 36 hours at a stretch went on for 20 years without defection by trie directors or manager, but then the men did not object to it, and, as the time appeared in the pay sheets as one day's overtime in twelve lays, it could not be easily de- tected. As soon as he knew of the practice he stopped it. By Mr Howorth.-Hood knew the state of the sleepers was not the cause of the accident, ur else there Would have been no meaning in his writing the letter suggesting that aome one had tampered with the points. By MrX?hanning.—Had the sleepers been rotten at the points they were there for the Inspector to look at. Aft"r the Crewe interview witness saw Hood, and ex- pressed his great regret that he had got himself into such an unpleasant position through the wilful misre- presentation tie had given of the state of matters when he had had the fullest opportunity of stating what the real facts were. Mr Channing—Did you advise your directors as to Hood's dismissal ? No. When our men came to give evidence I made up my mind that, pending any breach of regulations, I should not deal with any of the cases, and I pursued that course. Why was he dismissed ? I must ask you to put that question to the chairman, who is here to give evidence.—Then the directors dis- missed Hood because of his evidence ? They diimisied him for the reasons which the chairman will give you. I have come here to tell you the facts.—Now, were the pay-sheets which showed that men had worked 36, 38, and 40 hours during all these years ever brought under your attention? No; never. -Do you think, then, that your line was mauaged in the way that most other railway lined are managed? I think that if the work which the men did had not been very light it would have been brought to my knowledge, but it was because it 'as not oard that it never came to my knowledge.— Did you make statements before this committee last year without fumianiug yourself with the necessary proof-* and without telling the committee that you were not aide to produce t ie block telegraph book and the pay-sheets ? I told the committee that they could not be found. I was misled by the statement-i which Hood himself sent in that the nigh; man Humphreys had no1, been oa duty on the nignt of the 4th November, Mr S )tnervell-Do you know .vhat Hood was dis- missed for ? 1 wisa a direct answe" Yes or No," and you can explaia it afterwards. I would rather the Ciiirmsi'i gife evide ice on -har point. Mr Somervell—I muse ask for an answer, Yes or cc NO." The Chairman—He is not bound to do that. He says the directors dismissed the tnan, aud the directors are prepared to say why. Mr Charming—I wish to point out chat Mr Maclure sai i that; Mr Conacher would give us the whole facts. The Chairman—We shall get chat from the chair- man of the company. Witness, in farther cross-examination by Mr Somer- vell, said tiie.-e was no retraction as to the cause of the accident in the letter to which he had already referred. At t ie time of the accident Hood gave it as his opinion that it was due to the permanent way, and witness regarded his statement in the tetter simply as another hypothesis as to the cause. Witness was also cross-examined at some length by Mr Somervell as to th handwriting ot the entries in the block telegraph book as to who was on duty on the night of the 4th November. Humphreys and Roberts' handwriting were very much alike, and there was a difficulty of distinguishing between the two. The signature for the night in question was in Stokes' handwriting. At this point Mr Conacher's further cross-examina- tion was postponed until Monday f Mr Samuel Williamson, a clerk in ;.the secretary's office of the Cambrian Railway, said he was present at the interview which took place at Crewe between the directors and Mr Hood on Wednesday, September 30th. Hetookashorth ndnoteof what took place as near verbatim as he could, but of course when three or four were spesking at once, it was impossible to take everything. The Chairman—Are you sure you took down all that Hood said ?—Witness No, sir, Examined as to the points which Mr Hood disputed, witness said he was positive he took the words I am very sorry." He admitted having put in the transcript a whole line which was not in his notes. By Mr Channing—The chairman did not caution any of those present to speak slowly. By Mr John Wilson-He did nut read over his shorthand not, to Mr Conacher. He submitted the tianscript to Mr Conacher. By Mr Flynn-He did not profess to take a verbatim note, but he should ba.y he omitted nothing of import- ance of what Mr Hood said. The Committee adjourned until Monday The Committee met again on Monday, Sir Michael Hicks-Beach presiding. Evidence with regard to the Cambrian Railway was again taken. Mr Conacher, late general manager to the company, cross-examined by Mr D. Crawford, said that Stationmaster Hood was dismissed without being told what he was dismissed for. Mr Crawford Did you think that in the case of a man in the position of a etationmaster-when his dis- missal is contemplated by the directors-he should he told the reason ? j Witness I believe it has been the practice of the directors not to give the reason foe dismissal, in order that nothing should appear against him when he applied for another situation. By Mr R. Cooke I will ask you, looking to your position, in your judgment was Mr Hood distniased because he ave evidence before thi" committee, or becausc, as the result of that evidence, irregularities were discloesd in the work of the station at Ellesmere which re tdeied it undesirable that he should continue stationmaster or in the service of the company ?--I am not manager of the company now, and I have no author- ity to speak for the directors' and under these circum- stances I don't think I could speak further. They are here to speak for themselves. By Mr Murdoch From 1890 up to the time witness left the service of the company, in common with other railway companies, the directors were doing what they could to reduce the hours of labour of their servants. In witness' opinion there was not the slighest ground for Mr Hood's statement that after he gave evidence he felt he was a marked man. On the contrary, witness was particularly careful that nei,her Mr Hoo I nor any servant should have reason to believe he WAS marked man, Mr Hood was moved to Montgomery because the directors were of opinion that the discipline at Eilesmere was defective, and that Mr Hood should go to a smaller station. That decision was come to at tne beginning of 1888, but at Mr Hood's request effect was not i \'en to it until the beginning of 1889. Mr Channing Mr Hood writes that he is prepared to st.tte on oath that you us d the following words to him af er the meeting at Crewe :—" You are the only witness that has been dismissed for giving evidence." Is that true or not ? Witness No, it is not true. John Stokes, a goods guard, was also examined. Mr J. F Buckley, chairman of the Cambrian Rail- way Company, was next examined. He said, in reply to the Chairman, that he was present at the Board meeting at which Hood's dismissal was considered, but before going into that matter he should like to aik whether the committee believed the allegations of the witness in reference to the Ellesmere acci I snt, who had alleged that the permanent way was rotten. If they did, he should desire on behalf of the comptny that Col. Rich and the company's Engineer should be called, because the charge against the company was a very serious one, aad the company were not in the position of having well-briefy gentlemen on .the com- mittee to support their case. The Chairman asked the witness whether he applied tliat those gentlemen should be examined. The witness replied that he did. The room w;.s thn cleared whilst the committee deliberated in private. Upon the Press and the public being re-admitted, Tne Ch urman said that the Committee had decided not to call evidence in reference to the steepe -s.. Witness, proceeding with his evidence, said tht at the first meeting, at whi :h H-jod was dismissed, the case against Hood was brought up by Mr Conacher. It was discovered that he had s -at in a false pay sheet. This was only discovered after his evidence there. It was the case of Robinson and Humphreys being piid f r the Friday night, whereas another man had done the work. He brought a question himself in connection wit i Hood's general oon luct years before at Eilesmere station, when he pressed his colleagues to dismiss him a. incompetent. They felt they had good ground for taking the action, Bla,l they lil entirely outs; le the =vi leace given there. After that meeting witness received the following lecter Nom Hood on October 17th, 1891 As the directors have eventually decided not to reinstate me at Mont- gomery I beg to ask you to grant tne a private inter- view m order that I may lay before you several letters and documents which ic is intended to publish These documents will seriously effect the ^amorian Rvd.vav. I dil n >t brin^ them forward it Gc.we because I felt certain th»t I should be reioa-ated. That was the opinion of almost every one, an anxious to 3-iy no J ling about them if pmible. but from your manner towuds me at Crewe I had the moreen that you woild be disposed to re- instate me it' you knew all. I wid let you alone see the letteri. I have the n, but I cannot part with Sem and if y »u give me an interview I hope no one else will be present to take notes. If you send me a line I will come at a few day s notice. I do not wish to injure the company, ond I hare never done so, but I must defend mys df as my family is well connected. The interview will occupy fully an hour in ordsr to let you see all the let ers (except one, which 1 let anyone see till the Commission meets unless I am reinstated ) Pardon me in writing to you m this way, but my object even now is to keep the matter quiet, and as Mr Conacher is leaving it can do no harm. Pinase keep this letter private." The Ciialrinan-Did you see him or make any reply to l-hat letter ?—Witness: Certainly not. Cross-examined by Sir George Trevelyan The men on the Cambrian line did not work thirty-six hoius continuously, but only occasionally. As soon as Mr Conacher discovered if he put an end to it. Sir George Trevelyan Wasi it not brought un e the notice of the directors by Mr Bather ? Suppose youlbiad kept on Mr Hood, what damage do you think would have resulted to the company 1- I should never dream of keeping on man who once had been found to be thoroughly untrustworthy. Untrustworthy in what?—In regard to the pay- sheets. Which he says was done for the purpose of screening the company ?—Nobody asked him to screen the com- pany. But Mr Conacher admitted that the system could not have been contiuued if there had not been deception on the part of the agents. By Mr Channing The men never complained of long hours. Indeed some of them asked to be allowed to work them again after they had been stopped from doing so. Mr Hood admitted the pay-sheet was wrong. Therefore there was no necessity for the directors to go beyond that. The Committee adjourned until Thursday, when the cross-examiuatiou of Mr Buckley will be continued.

THE ALLIANCE ASSURANCE COMPANY.

(Imperial iaarliament .--........-.....-..-....-..-....-.r..r-.,--...........--------