January 10, 1913.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

77

been altered somewhat recently, and according to the
Coal Mines Order of February 27, 1912, a person may
not act as a surveyor until he has had “two years’
experience in the surveying of mines,” in spite of
Mr. McKenna’s assertion that “ he may also be regarded
as qualified to act as a surveyor.”

The Home Secretary also explained that the rule was
very necessary to ensure that a manager possesses the
practical knowledge and draughtsmanship required for
the keeping of proper colliery plans, and that he is
responsible for the accuracy of these plans. If this is
so, then why prohibit him from preparing his own plans
after passing a practical examination ? If such an
examination is required at all, surely a candidate should
also give a practical demonstration of his ability to
superintend the operation of supporting excavations—
the most fruitful cause of mine accidents. It is indeed
difficult to understand why a person should be called
upon to undergo a practical examination in mine
surveying, and to be certified as to his ability to prepare
accurate plans and sections, and then be prevented from
making these plans. Surveying is the only practical
part of the examination, and it is also the only branch
of mining in which the manager is not allowed to
practise.

Perhaps even more surprising is the announcement
that “it is a common practice for managers to allow
intending candidates the facilities and use of the
necessary instruments for carrying out a survey.” What
colliery manager in his senses is expected to allow half-
a-dozen colliers the use of a level, dial, or theodolite ?

There can be no question as to the object of this rule.
It is to limit the number of candidates for first-class
certificates, and the sooner mining students realise this
fact the better. This requirement will do more to
discourage mining education than anything of its kind
that has been brought to the notice of the writer.

London, January 6, 1913.	E. W. D.

CONTROLLING GEAR ON WINDING ENGINES.

Sir,—As the time will soon be here when all winding
engines must have controlling gear attached to them,
and as there are so many patents on the market, I, like
a great many more managers, am at a loss which to
adopt.

I have seen several at work and notice there is no
difficulty whatever in preventing overwinding (which the
detaching hooks have generally done). What I am
most concerned about is, Will they prevent the cage
dashing on the sump boards if the engineman forgets to
cut off the steam ? In nine cases out of ten this is where
the damage is done. I will take it as a great favour if
some of your readers will enlighten me.

January 3,1913.	West Hiding Manager.

COMPARISON OF RESCUE APPARATUS OF
THE INJECTOR ANO NON-INJECTOR TYPES.

Sir,—I shall be much obliged if you will allow me to
make a few remarks upon Mr. H. Jenkins’ letter in
your issue of December 20. His remark that if the
breathing bag of a positive pressure type of apparatus
be punctured, the pressure which is inside the
apparatus would be immediately released and so cause
a negative pressure, is quite beside the point.

To begin with, it would require far more than a
puncture—in fact, a very considerable rent—imme-
diately to release the inside pressure, and the wearer
would have such timely warning that he could easily
“ bunch up ” the damaged portion of the bag with his
hand, and so hold it while retreating to a place of
safety. This we have actually tried, and found to be
perfectly practicable.

On the other hand, in the case of the negative
pressure type of apparatus, there is no warning, even
with an infinitely small puncture, and therefore the
injector type of apparatus is exceedingly dangerous,
and, I may say, a death trap.

I invented the compressed oxygen and CO2 absorption
respiratory apparatus more than 20 years before any of
my competitors, and there is not one of their so-called
improvements that I and my colleagues have not
thoroughly thrashed out.

When Mr. Jenkins talks of the time required to
recharge the non-injector type before it can be employed
again, his statements are grossly inaccurate. In our
printed instructions we state distinctly that, if the
apparatus is to be used again immediately, it is only
necessary to throw out the used-up absorbing material
and put in a fresh charge. This can be done in a very
few minutes. It is only when the apparatus is to be
charged and put away for future use that the bag should
be washed and dried with a cloth. However, the CO2
absorber has nothing whatever to do with the question
of the injector or non-injector type.

My apparatus, which was successfully used in the
flooded Severn Tunnel some 30 years ago, was without
an injector, and the CO2 absorber was practically the
same as the cartridge, and was carried on the back. The
water was 40 ft. deep, and, as no submarine lamps were
at that time available, the darkness below was absolute.
Without any previous experience as a diver, I went down
four times and crawled slowly up the rough heading
about 100 yards, each time getting a little farther than
before. Then the late Alexander Lambert (Siebe,
Gorman and Co.’s chief diver) begged me to let him use
my apparatus. He had one lesson, and in two shifts
succeeded in closing the door in the heading which was
set in brickwork 4 ft. by 4 ft. by 9 ft. long, and 1,020 ft.
from the shaft. He had to remove the skip rails and
sleepers out of the way of the door. I mention this to
show the efficiency of the Fleuss apparatus, even at that
early date.

Admittedly the injector apparatus is somewhat cooler,
but surely it is not right to risk men’s lives for the sake
of a little extra comfort; and, after all, trained and
steady men do not find any discomfort in using the
“ Proto ” (Fleuss-Davis patent) apparatus. The “Proto ”
apparatus is far and away the most comfortable and
least fatiguing to carry, weighing only 34 lb., and it is
also the least bulky, and with it the wearer can crawl
under a lower bar than with any other type.

Several pessimists have said that more lives have
been lost by wearers of rescue apparatus than have
been saved by it. This may be true so far as it goes,
but in all fairness they should state that not one single
life has been lost where the “ Proto ” apparatus has been
used, and that all such deplorable casualties are due to
the injector system, or to some form of helmet. The
natural working of the muscles is liable to cause a leak
at any moment between the face and the mask, and
without warning; and, therefore, after trying every
possible device for making an air-tight joint to a man’s
face, head, or neck, my colleagues and I have finally
concluded that absolute safety can be relied upon with
the mouthpiece only.	Henry A. Fleuss.

187, Westminster Bridge Road,

London, S.E.

January 8, 1913.

PARLIAMENTARY INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF COMMONS.—January 7.

Mineral Rights Duty.

Mr. Harris asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether he was aware that, although the High Court had
decided, in the case of the Duke of Beaufort v. the Inland
Revenue Commissioners, that Mineral Rights Duty was
payable on the amount of rent actually paid by a lessee
to a lessor, and not upon the amount deducted in respect of
income tax, the Inland Revenue Commissioners have claimed
and received payments on the assumption that Mineral
Rights Duty was payable on amounts deducted in respect of
income tax; and, seeing that the Commissioners had
declined to refund moneys paid on that assumption, would
he state by what statutory or other authority the Com-
missioners disregard the decision of the High Court, and
retain moneys to which they have been declared not to be
legally entitled.

Mr. Lloyd George said: Since the date of the decision to
which the hon. member refers, the Commissioners of Inland
Revenue have only claimed payment of the mineral rights
duty on the net anjount of rent actually paid after deduc-
tion of income tax. The decision in question has been
appealed against, and, while the Commissioners have
intimated their willingness to make appropriate repayments
should the final decision of the courts be adverse to the
Crown, they have declined to take that step until the final
decision has been obtained.

January 8.

Horse Inspectors.

Mr. Butcher asked the Home Secretary whether any
special inspectors of horses and ponies had yet been
appointed under the Coal Mines Act, 1911; if so, when such
appointments were made; whether such inspectors would
report directly to the Secretary of State; if so, how often;
and whether such reports would be laid on the table of the
House ?

Mr. McKenna said he was informed by the Civil Service
Commissioners that the qualifying examination, which the
selected candidates for the three posts were required to
pass, would take place that day. He had asked the Commis-
sioners to take the necessary steps with a view to the
appointment of candidates as rapidly as possible. The
inspectors of horses would report to the district inspectors,
under whom they work. Their reports, like the reports of
the other inspectors, would be confidential, but the district
inspectors would report annually in the reports which are
presented to Parliament on the care and treatment of the
animals in their districts and on the observance of the
regulations.

Colliery Enginemen’s Hours.

Mr. Richards asked the Home Secretary whether the
provision in section 57 (3) of the Coal Mines Regulation
Act, 1911, prohibiting the employment of colliery engine-
men for more than eight hours in any one day, had been put
into operation ; and, if not, what was the cause of the
delay ?

Mr. McKenna said that as he had already explained the
objections which were received to the draft regulations had
in pursuance of the Act to be referred to a referee, whose
appointment rested with the Reference Committee under
section 117 of the Act. The formation of the. panel of
referees and the framing of the rules for the hearing of the
references necessarily required some time, but he was
informed that the arrangements were now nearly complete,
and that the announcement of the name of the referee
appointed to hold the enquiry might be expected in the
course of a few days.

COLLIERY ACCIDENTS.

Dunfermline.

An enquiry was recently held in the Dunfermline Sheriff
Court, concerning the death of James Meldrum, drawer, who
died on November 30 on a wheel brae on which he was at
work in No. 1 pit at Dalbeath, of the Fife Coal Company
Limited, by being struck by a runaway hutch. The
accident had happened, it was explained, on a gravitation
incline through the breaking of the chain. It was also
brought out that there were no safety appliances in use at
the back of the empty hutches.

The Procurator-Fiscal, addressing the jury, said it was
his duty to ask them to consider specifically, apart altogether
from any question of law as to whether it was legally
compulsory or otherwise, one very important point. That
point was whether, having regard to the evidence led, it
was their opinion that if a back stay or some other suitable
contrivance had been in operation, the accident would or
might have been prevented.

Mr. Pritchard, H.M. inspector of mines, said it seemed to
him that a great number of lives might depend upon the
decision of the jury. It seemed to him a very important
thing that jocks should be* put in use, and he did not think
there was any mining man who could really say that the
putting-in of jocks would cause a fatal accident.

Mr. J. M. Davidson, solicitor, for the insurance company,
maintained that the Legislature had deliberately excluded
the compulsory use of jocks in braes which were not
mechanical haulage braes. In this case the haulage was
gravitation. This matter was under consideration at head-
quarters, and a good many of the colliery proprietors had
taken the question up with officials at the Home Office. He
understood that the matter was being fully dealt with, in
order that a test case might be brought.

Mr. David Connel, solicitor, representing the Fife and
Clackmannan Coalowners’ Association, said that between
H.M. inspector of mines and the colliery owners there was a
great difference of opinion as to the utility or non-utility of
the use of jocks, and the advice which the association had
got was that in gravitation inclines they were very much
better without jocks, which were a source of danger. They
also held that under the Act they were not compelled to
have jocks in inclines wrought by gravitation. The subject
would be tested in a High Court, and he suggested that it
would be premature for the jury to make any recommenda-
tion in this case.

The Sheriff stated that the jury in making any recom-
mendation were not tied down in any way by any Act of
Parliament, and he did not think it would be proper or
expedient that these enquiries should be used for testing
questions of liability which might turn upon the construc-
tion of an Act of Parliament, and therefore he did not think
it would be proper for him to instruct the jury as to what
in his view was the proper construction of a section of an
Act of Parliament, and that their verdict should depend
upon what he said to them on that matter. He thought the
Procurator-Fiscal was quite right in telling them that they
might consider the matter altogether apart from the con-
struction of the Act of Parliament—whether the section of
the Act applied to this particular incline or not.

The jury expressed the opinion that in this case jocks
would not have been any improvement.

At Bridgend, on the 19th ult, before Judge Bryn
Roberts, Richard Thomas, colliery engineer, claimed from
the Bridgend and Cardiff Colliery Company Limited,
damages for wrongful dismissal. Mr. Walter Powell David
appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. J. T. Howell defended.
Defendants alleged that owing to plaintiff leaving the
boilers of the pumping machinery and going home, part of
the mine was flooded. Plaintiff gave evidence that be had
been on duty for 16 hours, and when he left all that was
needed was that someone should tighten a defective screw
as it became loose, and this he left to the stoker. His
Honour said that plaintiff ought not to have been dis-
missed. The man was justified in going home to rest after
16 hours’ duty, and judgment was given for plaintiff
for .£13 10s.