556

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

March 12, 1915.

such minerals treated as a separate parcel of land, the
regular printed form for which was well known. When that
had been done, he was not aware of anything precluding
the appellants from having a substituted capital value,
pursuant to clause 23, subsections 1-4, and clauses 2 and 3,
as amended by the Revenue Act of 1911, section 2. Their
lordships did not agree with the view expressed by Mr.
Justice Warrington that there could be no substituted capital
value if the value of the minerals was treated as nil under
section 23, subsection 2. The result was that the appeal
succeeded, and the order of the court below dismissing the
action must be discharged. There must be a declaration
that the Commissioners were not entitled to treat the return
made by the appellants, or the copy of Form IV. served on
them, or with which they were supplied, as the return
referred to in clause 23, subsection 2; and a declaration that
the appellants were entitled to have a provisional valuation
of the unworked minerals treated as a separate parcel of
land.

SCOTTISH COURT OF SESSION.

SECOND DIVISION.—February 18.

Before the Lord Justice-Clerk and Lords Salvesen and
Guthrie.

Workmen’s Compensation : Acquiescence.

Andrew Rankine v. Five Coal Company Limited.—This
was an appeal by the Fife Coal Company in an arbitration
under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, in which Andrew
Rankine, miner, 44, Anthur-place, Cowdenbeath, claimed from
the company, as his employers, compensation in respect of
injury received in an accident in their No. 10 Pit, Kirkford,
Cowdenbeath, on April 8, 1910. Compensation was paid at
the rate of 15s. 8d. per week, being half his weekly earnings
down to February 24, 1911. He was then certified by the
medical referee to be fit for light work, and was paid 7s. 2d.
per week until August 31, 1912, when the appellants ceased
payment. In October 1912 the respondent requested the
continuance of partial compensation, but this was refused.
On February 7, 1914, the respondent informed the appel-
lants that he was totally incapacitated, and he claimed
7s. 2d. per week from August 31, 1912, to February 7, 1914,
and thereafter full compensation at 15s. 8d. ner . week.
Sheriff-Substitute Umpherston awarded the comperisation
claimed on the ground that the respondent never fully
recovered from the result of the accident, and never returned
to work. The appellants admitted liability for the compen-
sation after February 4, 1914, but hot for the compensation
from August 31, 1912, to February 7, 1914, on the ground
that the delay between October 1912 and February 1914
in making the claim for the latter period barred the respon-
dent from making it.

The Division found that the Sheriff-Substitute was
entitled to -award the compensation claimed, and while not
expressing an opinion as to whether they in the circum-
stances would have pronounced the same finding, they said
that it having been found that all along the respondent was
suffering from the injury sustained in the course of his
employment, that he had given timeous notice of the claim
now insisted in, and the Sheriff-Substitute had found that
there was no prejudice to the appellant by reason of the
delay, there was no reason for disturbing the Sheriff-
Substitute’s judgment. The respondent was found entitled
to expenses.

Lord Guthrie expressed the opinion that mere delay was
not of itself sufficient to raise acquiescence or personal bar,
but that there must be in addition to that facts which showed
the abandonment of the claim or unfairness or prejudice
to the appellants.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS.

The Editors are not responsible either for the statements
made, or the opinions expressed by correspondents.

All communications must be authenticated by the name and
address of the sender, whether for publication or not.
No notice can be taken of anonymous communications.

As replies to questions are only given by way of published
answers to correspondents, and not by letter, stamped
addressed envelopes are not required to be sent.

SOME STANDARDS OF COMPARISON—AND
OF DEBATE.

Sirs, — As one having had considerable practical
experience in both hand and machine mining, I have
been pleasantly interested in Mr. S. H. Cashmore’s
paper on costs at the face. I have been less pleasantly
struck by the criticisms of Mr. John Gibson and your-
. selves in the current issue of the Colliery Guardian. As
to the material points raised, Mr. CashmoTd is well able
to take care of himself; my own remarks merely apply
to the manner of raising them. ,	'

First, you, sirs, state, that “ A complete justification
of papers . . . lies in the nature of the discussion
evoked.” I ask you : When and from whom? As you
are referring to Mr. Cashmore’s paper, you must refer
to the discussion- which followed the reading. What
. sort of reputation do you imagine. Clerk Maxwell would
have had to-day had his work been judged by the
discussion it first evoked? So much for the time.
First discussions count for nothing.

Then, the “ discussion evoked ” from whom? From
a number of men who have hardly thought about the
■ matter until asked to pronounce an opinion on it. And
■if the proposal .be new, from a number of men who have
never thought of the matter at all, and probably also
from some who think they ought to have seen the point
themselves. First discussions, sirs, naturally proceed
o'h comparative ignorance, and they are not always free
.from'what is euphemistically called “feeling.” Do
you really imagine, moreover, that the spirit which
imprisoned Galileo is dead? The present war proves
that we are just the same old kind of savages to-day as
our forefathers were then. The only difference is that
we wear white waistcoats and gold chains, instead of
grease clothing and tattoo figures.

Mr. Gibson’s attitude reminds one of that taken up
by the mining engineers of 30 years ago. Proposals
made at that time suggesting that improved conditions

were possible were then, as now, described as “ inept ”
and “ impossible,” with similar charitable suggestions
that'the proposer was “ out of his depth.” Neverthe-
less, the sons of these critics adopted the “ inept ”
proposals, with the effect of increasing output, wages,
profits, and safety at the same time. Why, had not the
Colliery Guardian itself to send out special commis-
sioners to America before most men in this country
could even be brought to consider seriously the claims
of coal cutting by machinery? But, just as the timid
men of to-day have eclipsed the still more timid men
of 30 years ago, so will the men of to-day be eclipsed
in their turn by their bolder sons, who will presently
increase output and profits by the simple means of
doing all the “ inept ” and “ unpractical ” things wThich
their fathers labelled “impossible.” The fruits then
reaped will “ justify the papers ” now being read. But,
with all due respect to you, sirs, the discussions now
evoked are of precious little moment. Wait till the
practical man is practical enough to get out of his
grooves. Probably he won’t, but his son will; at any
rate, the son will find a better groove than his father
did.

Mr. Gibson (with a “ perhaps ”) admits a certain
need for “ bold speculative thinking,” but avers it to
be useless “ unless the data used will stand critical
examination by practical men.” This is a platitude,
but capable of a two-edged meaning. Because, if (as
Mr. Gibson implies) the bold speculative thinker is no
practical man, then, conversely, the practical man is ,no
bold speculative thinker, which naturally suggests the
enquiry as to how far he is a thinker at all. Has it not
occurred to Mr. Gibson that the thinker, like other men,
prefers to be tried by his peers? Why does Mr. Gibson
make a distinction between a thinker and a practical
man? May a practical man not be also a bold specu-
lative thinker? Let Mr. Gibson define his “ practical
man.” It is quite clear that Mr. Gibson places himself
amongst that (vain-) glorious throng, and equally clear
that he places Mr. Cashmore on the other side of the
fence. I repeat, therefore, that Mr. Gibson should
face the situation he has created — let him define his
“ practical man.” Is this wonderful “ practical man ”
a thinker, or not? If he is not, let him sit at the feet
of the “ bold speculative thinker,” and learn wisdom.
If, however, he really is a thinker, let him think out his
own case, and state it clearly, without attempting to
lower or belittle the “ practical ” status of another
thinker. If he can think out bis case, he will have no
need to bolster it up by rudeness. I mention this point
because Mr. Gibson is not the only one. There are
already far too many “ of that ilk,” and the numbers
are increasing day by day.	H. W. Halbaum.

7, Mafeking-road,

Roath Park, Cardiff,
Alarch 8, 1915.

[Wo are always ready to publish any contribution
from Air.' Halbaum, and have the greatest respect for
his opinions, but we feel that, on this occasion, he has
been somewhat less than just, so far as we ourselves are
concerned. The only criticism that we offered on Air.
Cashmore’s paper was that he had failed to estimate the
influence of the wages factor; and this is a point to
which Air. Halbaum does not even refer. It may be
that he who writes for posterity can afford to disregard
so ephemeral a factor, but there is the danger that those
who are now called upon to adopt his suggestions may
be seduced into costly error in consequence. We can
only repeat that, in our view, the nature of the dis-
cussion at Birmingham was a justification of this paper
—the use of the word “ complete ” may have been
unwise; the criticism offered may have been unsound
and useless, but it betrayed the birth of thought—which
Air. Halbaum admits to be a good thing—and afforded
first-hand evidence of appreciable value to those who
have to solve the economic problems with which the
conduct of an industry is at all times beset. We do not
believe that Mr. Cashmore would be dissatisfied with
the result, if he had only made his audience think. The
papers read before our technical societies too commonly
fall into one of two groups—those in which “ scientific ”
terms and forms of reasoning confuse the minds of
those striving after truth, and those designed to push
the commercial attributes of some appliance, which
chiefly evoke ex parte protests from rival makers. In
either case the colliery manager feels rather out of
place. Again, we would remind our correspondent that
if it were not for “ first discussions,” there would often
be no discussions at all; and it is possible that there
may be “ village ” Clerk Maxwells as well as “ village ”
Hampdens. As regards the latter part rof Air.
Halbaum’s letter, which is chiefly concerned'with Air.
Gibson’s contribution, we must leave this gentleman to
fight his own battles; but we may point out that
Air.; ..Halbaum, in spite of his meticulous analysis, is
.guilty of a common logical fallacy—the “ undistributed
..middle.” He says “ if the bold speculative thinker is
no practical man, then,^conversely, the practical man
is no bold speculative thinker.” As one of the Latin
poets puts it, “ because all philosophers have dirty
finger nails, it does not follow that all those whose finger
nails are dirty are philosophers:'” Not every visionary
whose opinions to-day are discounted by the
practical ” man is entitled to . regard himself as a
budding Clerk Alaxwell. We do not wish Air. Cashmore
to fit these similes to himself; on the contrary, as. we
expressly stated, we regard his paper as being of an
exceptionally useful character. We certainly are, quite
unconscious of having been “ rude,” as our amiable
correspondent seems to suggest.—Eds. , C.G.]

TO CORRESPONDENTS.

J. A. (Bo’ness).—This point has not, we believe, been
settled in the Courts, but the Home Office hold that sub-
section (3) of section 32 applies to all the cases mentioned
in subsection (1). Thus, “ on the occurrence in a naked

light mine of ah explosion of gas causing personal injury,
safety lamps will be required in the first instance, under
subsection (1) (6), to be used for 12 months from the date
of the explosion, and after the expiration of the 12 months
must still, under subsection (3), continue to be used, unless
the inspector (or, on appeal, the referee) allows their with-
drawal.” {The Law Relating to Mines Under the Coal
Mines Act, 1911, p. 46).—Eds., C.G.

COLLIERY ACCIDENTS.

Chesterton.

On Tuesday the resumed inquest was held at Chesterton
on the bodies of the 12 victims of the fire at New Hem
Heath Colliery on February 25.

Evidence was given by Dr. F. Thomas that all the deaths
were due to carbon monoxide poisoning. There were no
marks of violence on any of the bodies.

Mr. W. J. Hassam, manager, said the fire broke out at
3.10 p.m. in the . haulage engine house at the top of the
Red Mine dip, about 40 yds. from the bottom of the shaft.
The engine house, which was open on one side, had brick
walls, with iron girders over the top. There were larch
poles between the girders, and the whole was “ lagged ”
over with timber. The house was 22 ft. 6 in. long, 12 ft.
wide, -and 10 ft. high. The engine rested on four wooden
beams, and the. floor was boarded on either side of the
engine, and at the back. The engine was driven by com-
pressed air, and the exhaust pipe ran below the floor. Under
the exhaust pipe, immediately beneath the two valve chests,
were two paraffin oil stoves, which were kept to prevent
freezing, and there was a paraffin oil lamp in the engine
house. No oil or other inflammable material was stored in
the engine house. There was a small donkey pump at the
pit bottom, 30 yds. away, and the water main from the
Red Shag seam had also connections for hose as a means of
extinguishing fire. There was also a hose pipe 50 yds. long
and 2J in. to 3 in. in diameter. No band grenades were
provided. The first call was sent to the rescue station at
Parkhouse at about 3.45 p.m., and the brigade arrived
about five o’clock. When he arrived at the pit about four
o’clock in the afternoon the fire was raging, and the roof
was falling. The main dip was soon blocked, and the
escape of the men cut off. The air then became short
circuited, and the smoke was carried direct up the upcast.
' Witness put two brattices at the Red Mine level to force
more air in, and sent Thomas Gleaves and Harry Bickerton
to try and get to the Red Aline. On their way they met
five men coming out. Witness described the efforts made
to reach the men through the airways, and said the 10
rescue brigades worked without intermission. Nothing
was left undone to save the lives of the men. In reply to a
question by the coroner, as to whether he did not consider
the method of using paraffin oil stoves rather crude, witness
said the boys in the pit worked with paraffin torches on their
heads. Whether he would use the paraffin stoves again
would be a matter for consideration. Mr. Hassam thought
it would have been unwise to reverse the ventilation; they
stopped the fan for a few moments, but the result was
disastrous, as they could not get into the Red Mine., The
stoves were filled from a can holding about a gallon of oil,
which was kept in the engine house, and was replenished
from the surface. Underneath the floor of the engine house
was a “sump” containing water to the depth of 9 in.,
but he did not think oil lodged on the top of the water, as
the “ sump ” continually overflowed into another water
hole, which was emptied periodically. The engineman,
Ernest Brown, had strict instructions to fill these lamps
outside the -engine house. Witness said he had not given
Brown instructions what to do in case of fire, but he knew
Brown had had instruction. He had heard that the water
which Brown used from the “ sump ” in attempting to put
out the fire made matters worse instead of better.

Horace Platt (15) said Brown w7as filling one of the
lamps by means of a tin, without a funnel. The tin of oil
was accidentally upset, and the oil ran along the floor. The
lamp which was alight set fire to the oil, and the engine
house w’as soon ablaze. Brown told witness to get a scoop
which was used for emptying the “sump.” They scooped
the water from under the engine and threw it on the flames,
but the fire spread. They obtained water in buckets , from
the shaft, but by this time the fire had obtained such a
hold that they could not get near the engine house. Witness
then told of the measures taken to inform the rescuers.
Brown was greatly upset, and said, “We must do some-
thing. What about the men in the dip?” Witness tried
to dissuade Brown from going down the dip, as the volume
of smoke was so dense, but Brown persisted, and witness
never saw him again. Brown never moved the lamps
when he filled them. He heard Bickerton tell Bowers to
go up and stop the fan, because he could not get into the
Red Mine for the smoke. Brown always used the old tin
and no funnel, with the consequence that even time the
lamps were filled oil used to run over into the “ sump.”
The water in the “sump” always had a certain amount
of oil on it. There were two gallons of paraffin oil usually
in the engine house, and a gallon of engine oil. It was
about half-an-hour before the hose was attached and playing
on the fire, and it was then too late to subdue the flames.

George Clarke, mechanical engineer, said the hose pipe
was at the top of the pit, and he took it down with him
and coupled it up. Brown could have done the coupling if
the hose pipe had been, down the pit. Witness further stated
that they had to send for him to couple the hose, which he
took down the pit with him. Several attempts were made
to reach the door between the main haulage dip and the
return airway, in order to short circuit the air, but without
success. ■-« ’

Harry Bickerton, fireman, described the rescue operations.
In the dip in 37 he found John Kennedy, William Hyde,
and James Cork. Hyde was dead, Kennedy was just alive,
and Cork was breathing heavily. He tried to rouse Cork,
but felt himself going weak, and so he turned back. He
got into 45, where he stopped until somebody came and
found him. The brigade then came, and he told them
where to find Cork.	■

Mr. Saint, H.M. inspector of mines, said the general
official opinion was that it would have been worse than
useless to reverse the fan. It would have imperilled the
lives of all the men who:were down the pit, and no one
would have been;-able to approach the fire at all.

The Coroner, in reviewing the evidence, said the facts
were particularly simple. The pit was one where naked
lights were allowed to be used, and, so far as he could see,
there was no breach of the Alines Act. He thought, how-
ever, that the jury would agree that the method adopted for
the heating was a somewhat crude one, and one that