miles, was started by a locomotive on that road. At this time a 

 construction company was engaged in the work of widening the 

 gauge of this line and making a new roadbed in places. In the 

 performance of its contract this company employed some small 

 engines such as are used by contractors in railroad building 

 which were evidently starting some of the fires along that line as 

 well as the locomotives on the regular trains. The chief firewarden, 

 Mr. L. S. Emmons, while watching one of these construction engines, 

 saw two fires start up behind it immediately after it passed by. On 

 its return he stopped it, examined the stack, and found it without a 

 screen of any kind. He compelled the engineer to put one on before 

 going any further; but he could not arrest the man, because the 

 section in our fire law relating to railroads makes no provision for 

 any such action. Under the law he could only sue the engineer in 

 a civil action, and, if successful, recover $100. But he would have 

 the railroad company to contend with instead of the individual as 

 the actual defendant, the case would be appealed to the higher courts, 

 and years might elapse and thousands be expended by the State 

 before he got the hundred dollars. 



Although the railroad officials claimed that every locomotive was 

 properly screened in compliance with the law, there were nights when 

 the unusual quantity and size of the coals thrown from some stack 

 could be plainly seen in the darkness, and indicated that the appliance 

 was not in good condition. 



On the other hand we had cases like this : A fire was started May 

 1 3th near Colby pond, Franklin county, by sparks from engine No. 

 683 of the New York Central Railroad, which destroyed several 

 hundred acres of timber. A forestry official immediately obtained 

 permission to examine the screen of this engine; but he found it 

 unbroken and in proper condition. Most of the iron netting used 



