THE SUCTION CASE. 



From the St. IvOuis Mirror, November 29th, 1900. 



There has been published as No. 10 of Vol. X. of the 

 "Transactions of the Academy of Science of St. Louis," a 

 pamphlet upon "The Frictional Effect of Railway Trains 

 upon the Air," by Francis E. Nipher, of Washington Uni- 

 versity. The brochure is remarkable, as it is practically a 

 scientific reply to a decision of the Supreme Court of Mis- 

 souri in what is known as "the suction case." In that 

 case the matter at issue was whether a boy ground to pieces 

 by a train had been drawn under the wheels by being 

 sucked into the vacuum created by the rapidly moving cars. 

 The Court decided that rapidly moving trains of cars do 

 not act upon the air around them in such a way as to en- 

 danger the lives of those about them. Professor Nipher 

 was an expert witness in the case. He and Professor C. M. 

 Woodward testified against the defendant railroad, that 

 rapidly moving trains did create a suction that might draw 

 a person too near the track under the wheels. The Court 

 made sport of Professors Nipher and Woodward in its opin- 

 ion. The language of the opinion, even charitably con- 

 strued, implied that the court believed the distinguished ex- 

 perts to be very disreputable men, willing to testify to 

 things of which they were ignorant. The Court, astonish- 

 ingly enough, put upon record, in its opinion, a similarity 

 which it claioied to have discovered between the conduci of 

 Professors Nipher and Woodward and that of a fallen 

 woman. The Court appears to have agreed that the suc- 

 tion performance was an invention of the experts for the 

 plaintiff, that the theory and fact of this train action was 

 unheard of, although the record of the case does not show 

 that the defendant railroad put forward, during the trial, a 

 single witness to contest the expert evidence. The Court 

 held that even if this alleged train action on air did exist, 

 it was unknown, and the railroad should not be held re- 

 sponsible. The contention of the plaintiffs and the ex- 

 perts was, that the suction necessary to draw a boy 

 under the wheels could only be created by a train running 

 at a rate of speed vastly greater than that authorized by 

 law within the limits of the city. The evidence of the 

 train-crew established the fact that the train was running 

 at an unlawful speed, when the boy was seen to topple 

 over, without being struck by the train, and roll under the 

 wheels. The Court said that the testimony did not disclose 

 any way by which the railroad company might have "pro- 



