[9] Of the same general character with the Tariffville and Ashtabula accidents were those which occurred on November 1, 1855, upon the Pacific railroad of Missouri at the bridge over the Gasconade, and on July 27, 1875, upon the Northern Pacific at the bridge over the Mississippi near Brainerd. In the first of these accidents the bridge gave way under an excursion train, in honor of the opening of the road, and its chief engineer was among the killed. The train fell some thirty feet, and 22 persons lost their lives while over 50 suffered serious injuries. At Brainerd the train,--a "mixed" one,--went down nearly 80 feet into the river. The locomotive and several cars had passed the span which fell, in safety, but were pulled back and went down on top of the train. There were but few passengers in it, of whom three were killed. In falling the caboose car at the rear of the train, in which most of the passengers were, struck on a pier and broke in two, leaving several passengers in it. In the case of the Gasconade, the disaster was due to the weakness of the bridge, which fell under the weight of the train. There is some question as to the Brainerd accident, whether it was occasioned by weakness of the bridge or the derailment upon it of a freight car. Naturally the popular inference was at once drawn that this was a mere repetition of the Ashtabula experience,--that the fearful earlier lesson had been thrown away on a corporation either unwilling or not caring to learn. The newspapers far and wide resounded with ill considered denunciation, and the demand was loud for legislation of the crudest conceivable character, especially a law prohibiting the passage over any bridge of two locomotives attached to one passenger train. The fact, however, seems to be that, except in its superficial details, the Tariffville disaster had no features in common with that at Ashtabula; as nearly as can be ascertained it was due neither to the weakness nor to the overloading of the bridge. Though the evidence subsequently given is not absolutely conclusive on this point, the probabilities would seem to be that, while on the bridge, the second locomotive was derailed in some unexplained way and consequently fell on the stringers which yielded under the sudden blow. The popular impression, therefore, as to the bearing which the first of these two strikingly similar accidents had upon the last tended only to bring about results worse than useless. The bridge fell, not under the steady weight of two locomotives, but under the sudden shock incident to the derailment of one. The remedy, therefore, lay in the direction of so planking or otherwise guarding the floors of similar bridges that in case of derailment the locomotives or cars should not fall on the stringers or greatly diverge from the rails so as to endanger the trusses. On the other hand the suggestion of a law