October 30, 1914.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN

927

Perhaps one of the most important
Sanitation results of the investigations recently
and carried out by the Royal Commis-
Stone-dusting sion on Metalliferous Mines and
in Mines. Quarries is that concerning the
influence of stone dust upon the
health of workers exposed to its effects. The
influence of dust inhalation in dry mines has indeed
been known since Roman times; it is referred to
by Pliny, and was common knowledge in the Middle
Ages when Georgius Agricola published his work
De Re Metallica^ in 1557. Now in the twentieth
century the question is still attracting attention, and
we are forced to confess that there are still many
things we do not know about it.

It is not necessary to refer now to the admitted
influence of silica dust such as that to which ganister
miners are exposed. It is an established fact that
the inhalation of finely divided siliceous particles
with sharp edges is a fertile source of respiratory
disease, and it follows from recent researches upon
the origin of miners’ phthisis that even a small
quantity of crystalline silica may render air wholly
unfit for admission into the lungs. A knowledge of
this fact has caused a not unpardonable anxiety
respecting the possible influence of stone-dusting
upon the health of the coal miner, although many
persons consider that such fears are wholly groundless.

We believe that the proper attitude to assume
towards this question is still that of the open mind.
Dr. Collis, of the Factory Department of the Home
Office, has gone to great pains to discover exactly
what kinds of dust are injurious, and Prof. Beattie
has carried out some instructive experiments at
Sheffield University with the same object. He has
thus arrived at certain important conclusions, which,
so far as the experiments go, tend to prove that
while dust of coal, clay, and certain other kinds are
not dangerous, silica dusts, that is to say those con-
taining free crystalline silica, are to be considered as
injurious when inhaled.

Now Altofts shale, which has been for some,
time used for colliery stone-dusting has not been
found to possess harmful properties in the least
degree, and yet this shale contains nearly 25 per
cent, of quartz granules. It is clear, therefore, that
the mere presence of free silica, even in the form
of quartz, is not enough to condemn the use of such
material. Why is this? An examination of the
free silica in Altofts shale shows that the quartz
granules are enclosed in an envelope of colloid silica.
Moreover, the granules themselves are more rounded
than the sharp sand arising from finely comminuted
crystalline silica. But we do not know with certainty
whether the immunity from injurious effects
exhibited by Altofts shale is due to the shape of
the silica granules or to their colloidal covering.
Neither do we know whether this colloidal covering
is a general property existing in all shales, or
whether it is a peculiarity confined to the Altofts
variety.

The presence of * colloid quartz carl readily be
detected by a simple test. A quartz particle enclosed
in a colloid film can be recognised from pure crystal-
line quartz by the following method. It possesses the
property of taking up certain aniline dyes, which
stain it. Red ink serves the purpose well, and it is
easy to test any sample of dust for colloid silica by
observing the degree of staining by red ink. What
we want, therefore, in the first place to know is how
far shale dusts, especially those of carboniferous
age, contain silica with a colloidal coating.

A colloidal film can be experimentally formed
upon crystalline quartz by treatment with boiling
alkali solution, and Prof. Beattie has found that
silica dusts so protected are in fact less injurious to
the lungs than ordinary quartz dusts. But his
experiments are not conclusive so far as to prove
that such protected dusts are absolutely innocuous.

Thus, we cannot yet say whether the observed
immunity from harmful influences exhibited by
Altofts shale is due to the colloidal film or to the
rounded outline of the quartz granules, and still less
can it be affirmed that all shale dusts are equally
free from danger to those who inhale them. We
want a great deal more information upon this point,

and the Royal Commission mentioned above admit
that our knowledge upon this subject requires
considerable amplification. They confess that the
solution of this problem has not yet been accom-
plished, and that its complete investigation would
have taken more time than they had at their
disposal. They propose that this problem should be
taken in hand by the Advisory Council and Executive
Committee appointed by the Home Office, as has
also been recommended by the Departmental Com-
mittee on Tuberculosis.

We understand that this investigation has, in fact,
been undertaken upon a comprehensive plan, and
that is the reason why we prefer for the present to
maintain an open piind respecting the suitability
of coal measure shales in general for the purpose of
wholesale stone-dusting in mines, more especially as
it is probable that considerable differences exist in
the nature of these shales.

In the meantime, however, it must not be over-
looked thac it by no means follows that stone-
dusting in mines, upon the scale suggested to ensure
safety from coal dust explosions, would necessarily
lead to the creation of a dangerous atmosphere. The
presence of such stone dust in the galleries of a
mine, on roof, sides, and floor, would not be expected
to create a permanently dusty atmosphere, as the
majority of the particles would not long remain in
suspension in the air. It would seem, therefore,
that the dangers of stone-dusting may easily be
exaggerated. But until we know a great deal more
about the matter, it is clear that a certain amount of
prejudice will exist against the use of any stone dust
containing free silica.

As we go to press the Sixth Report of the Explosions
in Mines Committee has come into our hands, and
under the last heading the very points suggested above
are referred to and confirmed. We shall defer until
next week our consideration of this Report.

j LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—October 23.

Before Mr. Justice Bailhache.

Minimum Wage Act: Stallman and Filler.

Churm v. Dalton Main Collieries Limited.—This was an
action in wThich Mr. Isaac Churm, of 27, Kelvin-street,
Dalton Brook, near Rotherham, Yorkshire, sued the Dalton
Main Collieries Limited, carrying on business at Round wood
Collieries, near Rotherham, claiming a declaration that
under the terms of his employment with the Dalton Main
Collieries Limited .as filler he wTas entitled to be paid nothing
less than a minimum wage under the Coal Mines (Mini-
mum Wage) Act, 1912, and also that the defendant company
were his employers within the meaning of the Act. The
defendant company, in answer to the plaintiff’s claim, stated
that he was employed by a Mi. James Fuller, a stallman,
and they denied that they were the employers of the plain-
tiff within the meaning of the Act.

Mr. Gordon Hewart, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Waddy
appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Leslie Scott, K.C., M.P.,
and Mr. Ellisons for the defendants.

Mr. Gordon Hewart, in opening the plaintiff’s case, gave
details as to his employment. He said that the present dis-
pute had arisen owing to the fact that in one week Fuller
had worked fewer shifts than the plaintiff. Plaintiff’s earn-
ings for the week in question totalled £1 2s. 3d., and he
contended that under the Act he should have received
£1 12s. lid. An application made to the company was met
by the objection that as the collier had not qualified for
the minimum wage, there was no minimum wage for the
filler. If, argued counsel, that contention were well
founded, it wTould revive the very grievance the Minimum
Wage Act was designed to meet. The matter had been
taken up by the general secretary of the trades union.

John Fuller, giving evidence, stated that he had been
working for the company since 1907. The plaintiff, he said,
was not employed by him. The butty system did not apply
■to the colliery in question.

Cross-examined by Mr. Leslie Scott, witness said he had
no authority to send the plaintiff elsewhere. The plaintiff
paid his own contribution under the National Insurance
Act.

Frank Frederick Hall, agent for the Yorkshire Miners’
Association, gave evidence as to the custom prevailing at the
colliery in question. He said he had never known a collier
represented on the district board as an employer. The
collier had no power to discharge a filler. If a filler wanted
a day off he had to make application to the manager.
Witness said he did not know of any one case in which,
before the Act came into force, a filler had been seen suing
his collier for wages in the county court. There had been
criminal prosecutions when the collier had taken the money
and failed to pay the filler.

Mr. Leslie Scott, for the defendants, said that his evidence
would be directed to show that it was universal throughout
the Yorkshire coalfields and throughout the great majority
of the coalfields of Great Britain for the filler to be
employed by the collier, and to be paid by the collier. In
North Wales, he said, the words “collier” and “con-
tractor ” were used interchangeably by the miners.

Mr. Henry Slade Childe, examined by Mr. Scott, said
that he was a mining engineer, and had had over 30 years’
experience on the coalfields of Yorkshire, Nottingham, and
Lancashire, and of all the different coalfields of the king-

dom. . The estates with which he was, associated repre-
sented one-third of the output of Yorkshire. Witness said
the colliery company had nothing to do with the employment
and remuneration of the filler. . The colliery knew nothing
of the arrangements as regards wages made between the
collier and the filler. There was no contract by the com-
pany to pay the filler wages qua filler. He had never
known the case of a filler suing the colliery company for
wages, but he had known of a filler suing the colliery, for
such wages.

Mr. Archbold Blenkinsop, general manager of .the Dalton
Main Collieries, said that there was no difference between
the particular colliery in question and the other collieries
in the Yorkshire coalfields as regards the relations existing
between the colliery company on the one hand and the collier
and filler on the other. He said there w’as no contract by
the company to pay the filler wages; the latter looked to the
collier for his wages. He had never known the case of a
filler suing the colliery company for wages.

Mr. Ralph Richardson, general manager of the Barrow
Collieries, near Barnsley, and Mr. Arthur Thomas Thomp-
son, general manager of the Manvers Main Collieries, gave
corroborative evidence.

Counsel then addressed the Court, and his lordship gave
judgment. He said that in this case the question was : what
was the true inference to be drawn from a good many facts,
very few of which were’ in dispute? The plaintiff was a
filler in the employ of the defendants, and he asked for a
declaration that he wTas entitled under the terms of his
contract of employment to be paid by the defendants wTages
not less than the minimum wage, andt further, that the
defendants were his employers. The dispute arose in this
way. The plaintiff wTas a filler, and he was working at the
time in question in conjunction with a collier named Fuller.
At the end of the week ending July 23, 1913, the pay-sheet
was made out to Fuller, and when the wages came to be
divided it turned out that the share which the filler was to
receive was <£1 2s. 3d. The wages which the filler ought to
have received, if he had been paid the minimum rate for
the week, wras £1 12s. lid., a difference of 10s. 8d.; and,
in addition to the declaratiori, he asked for that sum. The
defendants by their rules paid 13s. 4d. for getting and filling
10 tons. The practice of the colliery company was that,
although the collier and the filler worked together, the com-
pany gave one pay-sheet only to each set working in a
particular stall. Neither the name of the collier nor that
of the filler were put on the pay-sheet, but the collier was
known by a number, and his number was put upon that
sheet. The filler was chosen by the colliery company’s
manager for the collier, but the collier’s wishes for a
particular filler were, as a rule, attended to by the colliery
manager. The colliery company reserved to themselves the
disciplinary control of the fillers, the right to engage them,
and they alone had the right to dismiss them. The Act in
question stated that the person—the filler—shall receive the
minimum rate of wTage. Here, in addition to w’hat he had
said, wrere the powers of the company over the fillers, and
the company made the contract. Therefore the question he
had to determine was whether he ought to infer not only
that the colliery company tvere in one sense the employers
of the filler, but whether he ought also to infer that they
were the employers in the sense that they were the persons
really liable to pay the filler his wages. In this case he
drew an inference of fact different, from that drawn.by the
Court of Appeal in the case of Richards v. Wrexham Col-
liery Limited. He therefore came to the conclusion that
the true inference was that the colliery company and notM the
collier were the employers of the filler in this particular
case, and that the filler was entitled to the judgment he
asked for and for the few shillings due to him, and the costs
of the action. His lordship made the declaration asked for
on behalf of the plaintiff with costs.

Mr. Leslie Scott mentioned that this was a test case, and
he asked for leave to appeal.

His lordship granted the leave.

SCOTTISH COURT OF SESSION.
FIRST DIVISION.—October 16.

Before the Lord President, and Lords Johnston.
Mackenzie, and Sherrington.

Workmen’s Compensation : Breach of Rules.

Ann Wright v. Haughhead Coal Company Limited.—
This was a stated case, in which the appellant, Ann Wright,
19 years of age, of 12, Thornie-wood, Uddingston, who was
employed as a pithead worker, sought compensation from
her employers, the Haughhead Coal Company Limited. In
October last year she sustained serious injury to her right
foot, in consequence of which she was incapacitated for
work. She had left her work temporarily on the day in
question, and in returning to her place proceeded by a pro-
hibited and dangerous route, instead of by the authorised-
route. It was proved that, while the girls were frequently
checked for using the dangerous route, they persisted in
doing so, in the knowledge of the foreman, but not with
his consent. The forbidden route was shorter, and had the
advantage of not taking the girls through the men who were
working at the pithead. Sheriff-Substitute Hay Shennan
refused compensation on the ground that the accident did
not arise out of the appellant’s employment. He was of
opinion that in using the forbidden road she exposed herself
to a risk which was not one of the risks of her employment.
The Division came to the same conclusion as the Sheriff-
Substitute, and found the respondents entitled to expenses.

JUSTICIARY APPEAL COURT.—October 22.

Before the Lord Justice General and Lords Ormidale and
Anderson.

Control of Mining Detonators.

T. Tennant r. J. Allardice.—A case of importance to the
management of mines was brought by Thos. Tennant, Pro-
curator-Fiscal. Lanark, with the consent of the Secretary
for Scotland, against Jas. Allardice, colliery manager,
Nethanview, Lesmahagow, with reference to the control and
distribution of detonators. Mr. Allardice was charged with
two contraventions of the Explosives in Coal Mines Order
of September 1913. The first was that on October 29. 1913,
he being manager of Auchenbegg Colliery, he failed to have
detonators under his control or of some person specially
appointed by him for the purpose; and the second was that,
contrary to the Coal Mines Act, detonators were distributed
to miners before they were required for the charging of shot-
holes. With regard to the first charge, it was stated that
no special official was appointed to control detonators, but
that George Gray, a fireman, having written authority from
the manager to have charge of detonators, entered the store