January 1, 1915.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

A BROKEN-BACK SPLINT.

We take from the Colliery Engineer the accompanying
cut of a “ broken-back ” splint, used in the anthracite
region of Pennsylvania.

The two boards comprising the splint are combined
by means of a block and two hinges at the head. The
side boards which swing under the arms are secured
with four iron hinges. The upper ends of these boards
are curved in order to fit the arm pits comfortably; by
means of the hinges the boards can be swung wide apart

and placed on either side of the injured man, and tLen
gently placed underneath without unnecessary jarring
of the patient. The patient is held by triangular
bandages, one bandage being around the boards at the
head, then caught up underneath and placed about the
patient’s head so that when it is tightened it will force
his head down into the cushions. The padding of the
board is made with moss or hair and covered with
enamelled cloth, which is waterproof, and can be easily
washed.

BOOK NOTICES.

Electricity in Coal Mining. By David B. Shearer. 84 pp.;

9 in. x 6 in.; 28 fig. New York and London : McGraw-
Hill Book Company. Price, 6s. 3d. net.

This book, dealing with American conditions, is
evidently founded upon articles that appeared recently
in Coal Age. The matter is not extensive, but then the
author has not committed either of the mistakes com-
monly made by writers on this subject, viz., elaboration
of the theoretical and general side, or of the purely
mechanical features of plant driven by electrical, but
equally adaptable to other powers. Again, examples of
plant are not given ad nauseam.

There are two short chapters on calculations, and
then, in turn, the author deals with bell and signal
systems, selection of power plant equipment, and d.c.
and a.c. power plant design, prime movers and
generators, motors and haulage equipment, coal cutting
machinery, electricity for operating fans and pumps,
repair shops, etc.

The work deals essentially with American conditions,
and these necessitate treatment not to be found in
British practice. This is typically so in the case of
haulage locomotives, which have not been adopted to
any extent in this country. Nevertheless, the under-
lying principles are the same, and Mr. Shearer should
find many readers on this side for his little book, which
is beautifully produced.

Engineering Problems. Part I. By W. M. Wallace.

London : The Technical Publishing Company Limited,
55-56, Chancery-lane, W.C. 1914.

This small volume deals with problems of practical
utility to the draughtsman and designer. Many of them
present some special feature not adequately covered in
the text books. The author suggests a rapid and
accurate method of drawing the funicular polygon by
means of a movable polar diagram, which seems to be a
more simple way of dealing graphically with such ques-
tions as bending movements. There are also other
useful suggestions, and as many of the problems dis-
cussed have been taken from recent examination papers,
engineering teachers will find the book useful for class
work. Full solutions of all the problems are given, and
students who have failed to grasp the full application of
the calculus to practical problems will find here excel-
lent illustrations of the utility of this branch of
mathematics. There is no attempt to arrange the
problems in any particular sequence, but this matters
little for the class of students who are capable of using
this book. The book is nicely got up, and the solutions
are freely illustrated by clearly drawn diagrams.

The annual meeting of British Coalite Limited was held
in London, on Tuesday. The chairman (Mr. James Todd)
pointed out that the capital had been withdrawn by
.£9*77,305. The war had interfered with their negotiations
for the provision of capital to proceed with the erection
of their first colliery installation at the Old Silkstone
Collieries. German trade had benefited enormously from
the manufacture of coal tar products, and had set out to
capture this trade among others. Their own process lent
itself to the production from coal of residuals which were
valuable in the manufacture of synthetic dyes and in the
development of a new explosive. Beplying to a question,
the chairman said directly they had demonstrated to one
colliery company the value of their process, the way would
be clear and made easier for them to deal with other
colliery companies.

THE WHARNCLIFFE SILKSTONE
COLLIERY PROSECUTION.

Approved Lamps.

In the last issue of the Colliery Guardian, a short report
was published of the decision of the Barnsley magistrates in
the prosecution against the Wharncliffe Silkstone Colliery
Company and the officials under the same. In view of the
importance of the issues involved, we now give a more
detailed account of the last day’s hearing, on the 23rd ult.

At the previous hearing the charges against the colliery
company, Mr. Geo. Blake Walker (agent), and Mr. Jonathan
Wroe (certificated manager), for allowing the use of
unapproved lamps in the pit, were adjourned, upon a sub-
mission, on behalf of the defence, that the lamps in use were
expressly permitted by Sir Bichard Bedmayne, of the Home
Office.

Mr. Pope (instructed by Mr. Gichard) again appeared for
the Home Office, and Mr. A. Neal (Sheffield) defended.

Mr. Pope said perhaps the responsibility upon the manager
would differentiate as against the owners, for he would only
use such safety lamps as the owners provided for him, but
even then the obligation was upon the manager to conform to
the Act as well as the owner. The manager had complete
control of the management of the mine as to the provisions
of the Act with reference to safety. He referred to the
position of the manager in relation to the owner, because the
Bench would like to appreciate in what respect there was
individual and definite responsibility resting upon the parties.
Still, the obligation under the Act was a personal one.. Mr.
Pope referred to section 33 of the Act, and said the point he
wished to make was : that from the date the Order was made
and became law it became the duty of the colliery company
to bring themselves into conformity with the Act. They
said they failed to do this, as was shown by the fact that
nine months after the Order was enforced there were still, to
the extent of some 50 per cent., lamps being used which were
not of the proper type. On the previous occasion Mr. Neal
produced a letter which he understood was put forward as
in some way giving the company a lease of life for the
lamps they were using until January 1916. He was sorry
he did not look very carefully at the letter at the time,
because the letter did nothing of the kind. The letter was
dated January 17, 1913—nearly nine months before the Order
was gazetted or the lamps were approved. It was a letter
in reply to one from Mr. Blake Walker, who wrote :—

We have used the Mueseler lamp here for the last 25 years,
and on several occasions when there have been outbursts
of gas we have believed that we owed our escape from
accident to the readiness with wThich these lamps are
extinguished by explosive atmosphere. It will be a great
misfortune if the Mueseler type of lamp were prohibited.
We, of course, recognise it will have to stand the pre-
scribed test, but we shall only discontinue its use. here if
compelled to do so. Gan I do anything officially to
influence your decision in the matter?

Sir Bichard Bedmayne, in reply, stated :—

As you know, existing lamps with single gauzes, pro-
vided they pass the test, will be permitted to be used
until Janiiary 1, 1916. As I take it you desire to continue
to use the Mueseler lamp after that date, do you think
the lamp, if fitted with double gauzes, would burn? I
imagine not, but it is worth a trial.

Mr. Pope said the point he wished to bring out was that
the lamp to be used after the date prescribed by the statute
would have to stand the prescribed test of safety, and would
have to be of the type approved by the Secretary of State.
At the time of that correspondence—eight months before—
the company must have known, and Mr. Walker certainly
knew, that the lamps to be used would have to be submitted
and pass the test. In September the Order was gazetted,
and, as regarded the lamps of the company, they did not
conform, and never conformed, to the type of lamp so far
approved by the Secretary of State. Deferring to further
correspondence, Mr. Pope pointed out that there was a
distinct intimation that bonnetless lamps were not approved.
Thus the company would see, when the different approved
types of lamps were made public, that no unbonneted lamp
had been approved, and they would know at once that their
particular type of lamp did not conform with the type of
approved lamps. Nearly nine months after the required
date, the company were still something like 50 per cent,
short of the required number of lamps to bring them in
conformation with the Act of Parliament. Mr. P°Pe sub-
mitted the Act placed a personal responsibility on the
defendant in regard to the matter.

Mr. H. A. Abbott, senior inspector of mines for the
southern part of the division, gave evidence of finding
unapproved lamps in the pit on the occasion of his visit on
the date of the explosion. Cross-examined, he said there
were 21 lamps in all of which he took possession. The
approved lamps were examined at the Eskmeals testing
station, and he thought they proved perfect. He knew that
under instructions from the Home Office the unapproved
lamps were not examined, and he believed the unapproved
lamps were examined at the Leeds University by order of
the colliery company. Witness said he was unaware of any
correspondence between the late Mr. Pickering, who was
in charge of the district, and the company in June 1902.
Mr. Neal at once read the letter which referred to outbursts
of gas in the pit, showing that Mr. Pickering said it was
very satisfactory to know that all the lamps passed so severe
a test.

Mr. Neal proceeded to examine witness in detail, regarding
the constitution of the Mueseler lamp to show its special
qualifications, but Mr. Pope said he should take serious

objection to the question. That was not the tribunal to go
into the merits or demerits or the points of any particular
safety lamps. The question was that the lamps were either
approved or not.

Mr. Neal said his object was not to show that this was
an approved lamp, but a permitted lamp. Sir Bichard
Bedmayne, in the circular of September 1913, spoke of two
sets of lamps—approved lamps and lamps which were per-
mitted. He was laying his foundation to show that in this
case under no circumstances whatever ought the cases to
have been brought.

Witness agreed that there was a difference of opinion with
regard to the bonneted lamp. He agreed that the main reason
for the bonnet was to afford protection against the velocity
of the air, and also that it was desirable to have the lamp
so constructed that the gauze could be seen. He also
agreed with the suggestion that the law had only been
broken by using unbonneted lamps. Commenting on the
fact that the Order of September 1913 did not permit
bonneted lamps to be submitted to the test, Mr. Neal asked
the witness to explain, if he could, the position of the com-
pany, seeing that in January they were told that their
lamps might be used until January if they passed the test
and in September that the lamps could not be submitted to
the test.

Witness : That is not a question for me.

In answer to further questions, witness said he was not
aware of the fact that Mr. Walker visited the Home Office
to submit a proposal for the making of a disc in the bonnet
so that anyone could see whether the gauze was in and
properly fixed.

Mr. Neal read a letter from Sir Bichard Bedmayne, dated
Nov. 29, 1913, stating that he had submitted the lamp with
the circular hole in the bonnet to a meeting of the Safety
Lamp Committee, and after discussion the committee
decided that they could not recommend any departure from
the rule, and that the bonnet of the. lamp must be intact.
Witness was not aware that within two days of the receipt
of that letter the colliery company placed their order for
new lamps and altered lamps, with the instruction that the
makers were to go on as fast as they could.

Mr. Neal : Do you know a single colliery company in this
district which had by May 30 got their lamps complete?—
Mr. Abbott said he had not made enquiries, but he did not
know of one at the moment.

Do you know that Capt. Desborough’s evidence is that we
are summoned here for not doing what was commercially
impossible by the time?—I heard Capt. Desborough say
something to that effect.

Mr. Pope : Capt. Desborough is not a manufacturer of
lamps.

Mr. T. H. Mottram, divisional inspector of mines for the
district, produced the Orders regarding approved lamps. He
pointed out that the first order given was for 100 lamps on
December 2, 1913. His view was that, as there were 14
lamp makers approved, it was unwise on the part of colliery
companies to confine themselves to one man if he could
not supply the lamps. He did not agree that it was
extremely desirable to have only one type of lamp. Some
owners liked lamps of different patterns, to see which was
the best.

Mr. Neal submitted that the manager had nothing what-
ever to do with the question of ordering lamps. The com-
pany did this, and would accept all responsibility. Mr.
Wroe could only be liable if he had any control, and in
this matter he had no control whatever. He asked that
Mr. Wroe should be relieved straightaway of that summons.

The Chairman said if the manager had no power in that
matter he could be called.

Mr. Pope submitted that, in these matters, the respon-
sibility rested upon the manager.

Mr. Neal : We don’t leave these things to the manager.
Why should we? We accept responsibility for the lamps.

The Chairman intimated they would give their decision
on the point raised at the close of the hearing.

Mr. Neal, addressing the Court, submitted that Mr.
Walker was merely representing the company as a director,
and so far as being liable to prosecution in this case, he had
the greatest right of complaint at the prosecution. He (Mr.
Neal) did complain, and said it was very near indeed to
an abuse of the process of the Court. If it could be that he
(Mr. Walker) should be tried by a jury of his own workmen
or his confreres in the colliery world, not one of them would
say but that he was the first in the land for what he had
done for the safety of life in pits, and had done nothing up
to that moment to forfeit the reputation. Mr. Neal
explained that in 1884 the Midland Institute of Mining
Engineers, of which he was a member, after most exhaus-
tive experiments at great cost, reported in favour of
the use of the Mueseler lamp. That lamp had been used
from that time onward in the defendant’s colliery, with
very great success. Beferring to the subject of outbursts of
gas at the colliery, Mr. Neal .said he wished to explain that
outbursts of gas had never occurred in the Athersley Whin-
moor seam until the date in question, May 30 last. The
outbursts had occurred in other seams, and the lamp had
stood a very severe test, and Mr. Blake Walker was very
reluctant to part with the lamp which he knew was. right
in favour of something which someone else said, theoretically,
was right. Mr. Walker’s point of view in regard to the
bonneted lamp was that there was a very grave danger of
the lamp being built up without the gauze. Beferring to
the correspondence, Mr. Neal said Mr. Walker believed per-
mission was given to go on with the use of the lamps until
the others could be got ready. In the meantime, imme-
diately after the passing of the Act, Mr. Walker had corre-
spondence with Messrs. Teale and Company, lamp
manufacturers, Manchester, bringing to bear his expert and
unique knowledge on this matter, to secure, if he could, an
absolutely perfect lamp. In June 1913 lamps were submitted
by Messrs. Teale’s, and were tested at the Eskmeals station,
with satisfactory results; and in September 1913 came the
Order finally deciding in favour of bonneted lamps. Mr.
Walker still fought in the matter, trying to get a hole
through the bonnet, so that his objection could be got rid
of. On November 20 Mr. Walker saw Sir Bichard
Bedmayne, and submitted his proposal for the altered lamp,
but, on November 29, he learnt that his proposal was not
approved. Mr. Walker had then got to the end of his
resources, and he bowed to the decision given. On
December 2 he ordered 100 new lamps, and also ordered
the maker to put right the whole of the lamps as quickly
as he could. The maker told Mr. Walker they could not
deal with them in greater batches than 100 at a time, and it
was agreed that the work should be done as fas as possible.
Who could have done more? The matter did not rest there,
however, for the colliery company wrote pressing for quicker
deliveries. Mr. Neal pointed out that the company replied