1094

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN

November 26, 1915.

The only way open to secure State uniformity in this
matter was for them, as mine inspectors, to take these
matters up with their legislators at home, after agreeing
together on certain points of uniformity. Mr. Beard
had referred to the opposition of miners to any measures
restricting their operations in the mines, and the similar
opposition on the part of coal operators to such restric-
tions as tend to increase the cost of production in the
mine, although these might be necessary to obtain the
greatest degree of safety. These two forces were con-
tinually fighting each other in respect to the enactment
of mining laws. Successful mine legislation could only
be secured through the joint co-operation of operators
and miners to secure the same end.

The duties that devolved on the operator and miner
respectively were alike necessary for the safe operation
of the mine. The operator must see that his mine was
well ventilated, the haulage roads in safe condition,
independent travelling ways provided for the men to
reach their working places, and employ competent mine
foremen and fire bosses, and supply them with what-
ever material is necessary for the safe operation of the
mine. On the other hand, the miner must keep his
place securely timbered, and take every precaution to
avoid danger. While the law might impose these duties
on miners and operators, it was up to those charged with
the enforcement of the law to see its provisions carried
out. In the enforcement of law, discipline was neces-
sary, and that was a point for uniformity. Suitable
penalties should be prescribed for the non-compliance
with the law on the part of everyone connected with the
operation of the mine. This was the first consideration
in their efforts to secure greater safety in mining.

With regard to uniform mining laws, he had studied
carefully the codes of the different coal producing States,
and found that the laws in most States were adequate if
enforced. In his opinion, they had too many laws that
were difficult to understand. In some cases the laws
were so complex that the mine inspector was at a loss
to answer a question relating to them until he had had
time to sit down and go over the statutes. He believed
in brevity and clearness, and that was another point for
uniformity; but the enforcement of the laws they had
was, in his opinion, of the greatest importance.

Mr. Starks (Illinois) wished to say a word in regard to
the interchange of certificates of competency between
different States. The objection to such an interchange
of certificates would arise from the fact that the stan-
dards of examination in some States were more difficult
than those in others. Some examining boards placed
more emphasis on the practical side of mining, while
others placed greater emphasis on technical questions in
mining. Again, some examiners were easier in the
examination of candidates than were others. The posi-
tion of mine manager (foreman) in Illinois was well
paid (about 150 dols. per month), while in adjoining
States the same position was from 110 to 175 dols. per
month. He believed the mine inspectors of Illinois
would fight this question of interchange of certificates to
the last ditch, for the reasons given. It would be diffi-
cult to frame a law that would be acceptable to all in
this regard.

Mr. Flynn thought there was no need of any jealousy
existing between the States on account of the rate of
pay to foremen. In regard to the difference in the ques-
tions asked by different State examining boards, these
were practically. along the same lines. The style of
questions, whether practical or technical, depended
much on the mathematical training of the board mem-
bers. While he did not consider that a mine foreman
must be able to answer all the technical questions asked,
in order to prove his competency to manage a mine
safely, if a man knew these questions, and was able to
answer them, it was better for him. That was one
reason for an interchange of certificates and a more
uniform standard of examination. Many questions were
asked in examinations that had no bearing on the safe
operation of the mine, and did not serve to determine the
competency of the candidate to act as foreman of a
mine. In fact, some of these question he, himself, had
put to engineers who had been unable to answer them
without referring to their text books.

Mr. Beard said they must have intelligent mine fore-
men, and must hire men who had had experience in
gas, to fill positions in gaseous mines. In this respect
he cared little whether they could pass a technical
examination or not, if they had the necessary experi-
ence in handling gas. It was better that the man had
this technical knowledge—it made him a more compe-
tent man. The question of an inter-State certificate for
mine foremen and fire bosses would depend on the ques-
tion of standardising mine examinations, so as to conform
to certain specified conditions in the mine. He did not
think that the right of every board to formulate its own
questions and set up its own standard of conducting the
examination should be questioned. In striving to secure
greater uniformity in a few essential points in mine legis-
lation, the question of detail should be laid aside. The
chief question was what constituted the safe operation
of mines under certain specified conditions. Those
questions should be decided right there. He asked that
they might have a committee appointed that would work
in accordance with the suggestions of the institute and
in harmony with the Federal Bureau of Mines, to the
end that laws might be drafted on points they might
deem essential to safe mining.

Mr. Roderick (Pennsylvania) considered uniform
mine legislation an impossibility. For instance, the
State of Pennsylvania was governed by two sets of laws
—one for the anthracite and another for the bituminous
region. The anthracite laws could not be applied to the

operation of the bituminous mines; neither could the
bituminous laws be applied to the operation of the
anthracite mines. Now, if it be impossible to apply a
uniform code of laws to the mines in a single State,
how could one frame a law adapted to the operation of
the mines in all States where the conditions were very
different? He thought they would all agree that the
State of Pennsylvania was the pioneer in mining laws,
in that country, and that the laws of the other coal
producing States were .patterned largely after those of
Pennsylvania. Some 12 years ago, the chief of the
Department of Mines, at Harrisburg, presented to the
legislature a code of laws that he considered would be
a long step toward the unifying of mine laws, and, with
few changes, they were enacted. However, there was
still much contention over that code of laws, and many
amendments had been submitted to the legislature the
present year.

There was always much difference of opinion as to
what should be included in a code of mine laws. It
might be possible to adopt a uniform code in a country
under a single government; but in a union of States,
each having its own form of government, but united
under a Federal government, there were bound to be
the State rights mentioned by Mr. Flynn. He believed
that the mining laws of every State must deal with
its own conditions. The conditions in Pennsylvania
differed from those in Illinois, and the Illinois conditions
differed from those in West Virginia. He himself came
from a hard coal region, where they had all conditions
varying from a flat seam to a vertical pitch.

Mr. Beard had mentioned the need of defining what
was meant in the law by a “ gaseous mine.” Some
mines were so gaseous that it was unsafe to enter the
shaft without a safety lamp; other mines were gaseous
in certain sections, where safety lamps must be used,
while it was safe to use an open light in other sections
where no gas was generated. He recalled such an
instance in his State this year, where an accident
occurred in a mine, due to a sudden outburst of gas,
which cost the lives of 13 men. There was an ample
ventilating current, but the gas accumulated behind a
heavy fall of coal where the current did not reach. At
the inquest, the company was censured because they
had not insisted on the use of safety lamps by the
miners working in that section. The foreman testified
that he had suggested that safety lamps be used, but had
not urged the suggestion because of the dislike of the
miners to be forced to use safety lamps in their work.
In such a case nothing was said as long as nothing
happened, but, in case of accident, it was at once asked,
” Why did not the mine inspector insist on the use of
safety lamps in that section? ”

In reference to the point that the anthracite law
required that a candidate for examination for mine
foreman’s certificate should have spent five years “ as
a miner ” at the face, he would say that, while it was
claimed by the union that the man must have dug coal
for five years, the mine inspectors claimed that five
years spent in general work throughout the mine,
including mining coal, would make a better “ miner ”
than to spend that time in digging coal. The inspectors
believed that a general utility man, who had gone
round the mines, setting timber where it was required,
building doors, fixing roads, and doing other practical
work, was much better fitted for mine foremanship than
a man who had spent all his time cutting coal at the
face. At their request, the chief of the Department of
Mines referred this matter to the Attorney-General, who
defined the word ‘‘ miner ” as any person working in
the mine. By this decision, any man who had worked
for five years in a mine, driving a mule, building doors,
etc., though he never cut a pound of coal, was a miner
in the meaning of the law.

One point of difference between the anthracite and
bituminous mines of Pennsylvania was that the
anthracite mines always exacted a miners’ certificate of
a man before he was given a place to dig coal, while
there was no such requirement in the bituminous mines.
It was these different conditions that operated against
uniform legislation. Someone had said that one State
would not care to copy or pattern its laws after another
State, but he could say for Pennsylvania that they would
be glad 'to adopt anything that was good. Pennsylvania
had recently enacted a compulsory compensation law.
In order to bring the anthracite miners under the com-
pensation law, it was necessary to amend certain sections
of the law, requiring that a mine foreman must hold a
certificate of .competency granted him by an examining
board. As long as that statute was in force, the miners
could not come under the Compensation Act, for the
reason that the law made the mine foreman responsible
for accidents, and released the operator, who could not
employ any but a mine foreman certified by the State.
This question was submitted by the miners to one of the
best attorneys in the State, who informed them that
they could not come under the Compensation Act unless
that clause was eliminated from the law. The law was
therefore amended so as to make any persons having
equal qualifications with those of a certificated mine
foreman eligible to act in the same position. Under that
law, the company might appoint a man to act as mine
foreman, whom it considered equally competent as a
certificated man who has passed the examining board.

Mr. Beard (New York) had noted down several ques-
tions they could discuss to advantage. The first question
was : Should mine foremen, assistant mine foremen, fire
bosses, and other mine officials be required to qualify by
passing an examination before a duly organised examin-
ing board? While such examination and certification was
provided for in the mining laws of many coal mining
States it was a fact to be regretted that the laws of other
States made no such provision. Indeed, in some coal
producing States, the question of mine legislation had
not been considered separately from the general code, in

which the matter was given little consideration. He
suggested it was a matter worthy of the careful con
sideration of the institute whether or not men holding
these official positions in any and all States should be
required by law to qualify by showing their fitness and
competency to hold such positions.

The second question was: What should be the
character and personnel of such an examining board,
and what should be required of candidates desiring to
take the examination for a certificate of competency?
He considered that was another important question
worthy of careful consideration by the institute. They
should be able to so classify conditions in mining as to
outline what general requirements should be exacted of
candidates for certain positions. They should con-
sider how much technical knowledge a man should be
required to possess to become mine foreman, assistant
foreman, or fire boss. Also, how much practical
experience a candidate should be required to possess,
and of what nature.

The third question was : What were the responsi-
bilities of the mine foreman, assistant mine foreman,
and fire boss, severally, and what authority had each
of these in relation to their duties in the mine? It was
clear that these men should possess the knowledge and
experience that would fit them for their particular
work. In some mines, the authority of the fire boss,
in respect to gas, was supreme, while in other instances
there was no such recognition in the law relating to
the fire boss in his work. There had been much dis-
cussion in the Press regarding the responsibility of the
assistant mine foreman under the law, and it had been
shown that the mine foreman and his assistant, and, in
some cases, the fire boss, held only nominal authority in
respect to their work, which was practically under the
control of the superintendent or the manager of the
mine; and in order to hold their positions, these officials
must do as requested by their superior officers. This
was also an important question.

The fourth question was : Should the mine superin-
tendent be required to qualify by taking an examination
similar to that required of the candidates for inferior
positions in mining? At present there was no qualifica-
tion required of candidates for this position in any of the
coal producing States. Although the superintendent had
it in his power to control the operations of the mine,
which were practically in his charge, it often happened
that his practical mining knowledge was inferior to that
of the mine foreman whom he employed, though his
superior position and his relation to the mine foreman,
who was supposed to carry out his orders, were such that
it would seem that the requirements for the position
should be as strict as those now required by law for posi-
tions in the mine.

The fifth question was : Would it be possible to form
any general classification of mines with respect to dust,
gas, and ventilation, with a view to enforcing more strict
regulations in regard to the accumulation of dust in the
workings and its treatment; the more thorough and
frequent inspection of mines generating gas; and the
more efficient ventilation of the working places by
making certain specifications relating to the building of
stoppings, brattices, doors and overcasts, so that the
current of air entering the mine would be made to
sweep the entire working face? The law should also
specify clearly that the air current must not only be
measured in the main intake and return, and at the
mouth of each air split, but also at the inside cross cuts,
to ascertain that the air current is doing the work
intended.

The President suggested that it would be better for
each of these questions to be presented in the form of
a resolution at a later time.

A resolution was also adopted urging that, in order to
secure the greatest degree of safety in operating coal
mines, it was absolutely essential that candidates for
the positions of mine foreman, assistant foreman, and
fire boss should be required to qualify in respect of their
fitness and capability to fulfil the duty of such position.

(To be concluded.)

Profit Sharing Schemes in 1915-15.—Since the publication
of the Report on Profit Sharing in the United Kingdom in
1912, states the Board of Trade Labour Gazette, annual
enquiries have been made as to the progress of the system.
It appears that there were, on June 30, 1915, 153 firms in
this country having some form of profit-sharing in operation
in their business, as compared with 156 on June 30. 1914.
Seven schemes have come to the knowledge of the Depart-
ment since the publication of the annual statistics for
1913-14. Three schemes then included have now been
definitely abandoned, and three have been temporarily sus-
pended. The number of schemes added to the Department’s
list this year is much smaller than last year, but it should
be staged that many of those firms who were about to
initiate a profit-sharing scheme have abandoned the idea
on account of conditions arising out of the war. Of the
seven new schemes, three have been started in gas companies,
the most important group in which profit sharing is in
force. Of the three firms stated to have abandoned profit-
sharing, one gives “ incompatibility with trade union
ideas ” as the reason of the abandonment. In the three
cases of temporarv suspension, this course was taken as a
result of the conditions now prevailing owing to the war.
For the twelve months preceding the declaration of profits
in 1914. the average number of persons in the permanent
employment of the 153 firms known to have profit-sharing
schemes of June 30, 1915, was 141.112. The amount
allotted to employees under the 121 declarations of bonus
which took place in 1914 showed 6*7 per cent, was added to
the aggregate wages of the participating employees: 127
of the firms gave particulars as to the amount of bonus
distributed bv them in 1914. The total amount for the 127
firms was £370.246, which was distributed among 71.268
emplovees, giving an average of £5 3s. lid. per participating
employee.