628

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

September 18, 1914.

gallery was filled with obstruction such as they might
meet with in a roadway after an explosion, and was
filled with an irrespirable atmosphere, and there they
tested the three apparatus which at that time were said
by the Germans to be perfect. The result was that no
apparatus was able to withstand more than 20 minutes’
work. Two doctors were present to take observations,
and he remembered afterwards that there was a general
feeling of disappointment that nothing more could be
done. They went away feeling that the apparatus waN
not secure, inasmuch as it was only able to do 20
minutes’ work. Dr. Haldane was present on that
Occasion, and he (Sir William) could say without fear
of contradiction that from that time Dr. Haldane had
been in close touch with those who were trying to
perfect apparatus, and watching from the scientific
point of view all that had been done. Dr. Haldane
came there with all those years of practical and scientific
experience to present a report, which during the last
six months had done more good than anything else in
the last six years. The criticism wThich he had offered
on the various apparatus in a scientific and most clever
way had been taken advantage of by the makers.
Speaking as one having had something to do with the
Weg apparatus, which had never gone beyond the
colliery workshop—with the exception of the valve—he
could say that Dr. Haldane had revolutionised that
apparatus, having taught them things they had been
anxious to know for years, but which they had never had
the sense to discover in the way that Dr. Haldane had.
He hoped they would discuss this matter in the same
way that they had discussed it for the last 13 years, and
not with a view of bringing forward the claims of any
particular apparatus, but in order to get the very best
apparatus. So far as he was concerned, he was willing
to throw all that was connected with the Weg, which
had cost him more than. .£1,000, on the table and say,
‘ ‘ Take what you like; any thing there is good in it take
it, and throw away anything that is bad. Drop the
name, and let us have a perfect British apparatus.”
Let them throw their minds to the time when hundreds
of men might be down the pit and thousands on the
bank, anxious for the safety of those whose lives might
depend upon an efficient apparatus, and not discuss the
matter in the way the last speaker had. (Applause.)

Mr. Fryar said the opinion which Dr. Haldane had
expressed at the end of the second report as to the
apparatus which should be used at the Doncaster Rescue
Station was really a private report which Dr. Haldane
was asked to make for the Doncaster Rescue Station
Committee, and Dr. Haldane himself was not respon-
sible for the fact that that report had been printed in
this paper. The report was really written for the Don-
caster Rescue Station Committee, and not as part of
the paper. It was the Doncaster Coal Owners’ Gob
Fire Committee, of which he was a member, that took
the responsibility of printing that report, because they
thought it would be of great interest, and possibly of
use, to the members of that institution and others
interested in the question. It should be quite clearly
understood that Dr. Haldane had not put that paper in
with a view to booming any apparatus. • It did not
matter a scrap to Dr. Haldane what apparatus wras
used. His desire was that whatever apparatus was used
it should be used safely. He entirely disagreed with
Mr. Piggford in what he had said, and the way in
which he had said it. He thought that Mr. Piggford,
knowing that they at Mansfield had just equipped a
station with liquid air apparatus, did not want to think,
or the coal owners in his district to think, that liquid
air was not the best form of equipment. Personally,
he (the speaker) was one of the coal owners’ represent
tatives who had to decide the question, and he voted
for liquid air. He thought he was as much responsible^
as Mr. Piggford for liquid air apparatus being installed
at Mansfield, and he did not hesitate to take that
responsibility. The liquid air system appealed to him—
it appealed to him now as being one of the likeliest
systems—but in view of what practical and thorough
experiments had shown, anyone who used liquid air
apparatus in the form in which they put it in at Mans-
field would be an absolute fool. The apparatus was
such that if a man attempted to do any work he would
in all probability have become unconscious in three
to four minutes. For anyone to expect to rescue a
person with an apparatus in which he could not live
himself for more than three or four minutes was absurd,
and it had been due to Dr. Haldane that the liquid air
apparatus had been improved. They must give Dr.
Haldane credit for this. When he was asked, he stated
in the most modest way possible what his opinion was
after conducting all these experiments, and he did not
think it was fair that anyone should even insinuate that
he had the slightest bias in favour of any one apparatus
as against any other apparatus. He thought the whole
mining community owed Dr. Haldane a great debt of
gratitude for the enormous amount of work, and, he
might say, suffering, he had gone through in the course
of his experiments. They ought to recognise that debt
of gratitude, and they ought to realise that the opinions
he had expressed had been absolutely honest and fair
opinions. (Loud applause.)

Mr. John Gerrard said he should express the feelings
of that meeting when he said that they deprecated very
much the attack that had been made on Dr. Haldane
—(hear, hear)—who for so many years had given them
of his best. He had been in the doctor’s company when
he had been lecturing and making experiments, and he
could say that Dr. Haldane had done his utmost.
Without any bias, and without any feeling in favour of
any apparatus or any individual, he had done his utmost
to help mining men to get what was the best apparatus
for rescue work. He hoped Dr. Haldane would not be
discouraged because things had been said which seemed

to reflect on him, and he urged him to go on enquiring
into the scientific aspect of this question, giving them
the advantage of his advice and knowledge.

Mr. Hugh Johnstone, proposing a vote of thanks to
Dr. Haldane, said he associated himself entirely with
what Sir William Garforth and other speakers had said.
They owed a great deal to Dr. Haldane for the very
excellent paper he had given them, and to the Don-
caster Committee, who had made it possible for him to
conduct these experiments and write 'that paper.
Through the courtesy of that committee, he (Mr.
Johnstone) wTas appointed to represent the Home Office,
and he had had the opportunity of witnessing a number
of the experiments. Many of them were conducted
under conditions that were exceedingly trying, and one
hardly knew whether to admire most the care and the
skill with which the different experiments were devised,
or the pluck and endurance shown by the unfortunate
victims who carried out the experiments. Some of
them, he could assure them, were of an exceedingly
trying nature. The suggestion had been made that
many of the experiments were not of a very practical
nature. Perhaps the speaker forgot that he was speak-
ing in a district where they knew as much about rescue/
apparatus and as much about the Aerolith and other
types of apparatus as in any part of the country, and
he had no hesitation in saying that these experiments
were very well designed indeed to bring out the merits
and demerits of the different types of apparatus. There
were two things which were specially brought out in
the paper. The first was that with regard to rescue
apparatus there would always be some danger, some
risk, accompanying its use. The second point was that
they had not reached finality with regard to rescue
apparatus. Every type had been enormously improved
since it was first put on the market, and it had been
largely due to the experiments and suggestions made by
Dr. Haldane. They, as a mining community, were
indebted to him more than anyone else for the work he
had done in this respect. He hoped he might continue
to conduct such experiments as would lead to the pro-
duction of a final type of apparatus which would avoid
the risks of the present types, and combine the best
features of all of them. (Loud applause.)

The Chairman seconded the vote of thanks, which was
heartily accorded.

Dr. Haldane said he thanked them very heartily for
their kind wrords. With regard to Mr. Piggford’s
remarks, he was sorry they did not agree better. He
quite saw that there was room for differences of opinion,
and he did not want to say that he was convinced that
he was right, and that Mr. Piggford was wrong. He
welcomed his criticism, but he thought that if he would
read these reports carefully he would find contained in
them what would be his reply to those criticisms. The
liquid air apparatus had rather suffered from its adver-
tisement. He confessed that to some extent it put him
off when he saw an apparatus advertised as if, with an
air supply of 15 litres a minute, you could possibly do
any considerable amount of work without a proper
purifier. It was so preposterously absurd—it seemed
so to him as a physiologist—that he was rather put off.'
And when he saw a picture of an unfortunate person,
wounded or unconscious, breathing air that was
coming from the apparatus—the amount was already
utterly insufficient for the person using it—the fact that
the wounded person should have what was left over
seemed to him to be rather absurd. It was a total
misapprehension of the physiological point of the ques-
tion. It was no use giving a large amount of oxygen
if they gave a corresponding amount of carbon dioxide.
The oxygen did not do any good; the man was bound
to go over. It was unfortunate for the apparatus that
these advertisements should have been sent round; if
was perhaps creating a little prejudice. However, he
quite acknowledged that liquid air apparatus was very
different from the original type. Nevertheless, he
thought it was a clumsy system—at any rate, not a
convenient system—but it remained to be seen from
practical experience whether or not it would justify
itself, especially under certain conditions. (Loud
applause.)

Sir William Garforth said in July of last year he
suggested to the Home Office that the time had anived
when a practical test should be made of portable breath-
ing’apparatus, and he suggested that a committee should
be appointed, consisting of two Government officials,
Mr. Johnstone and some other gentleman who had taken
an interest in the work; two representatives from the
Mining Association, who should be coal owners or
mining engineers; two representing the men, appointed
by the Miners’ Federation; and two doctors and a
physiologist. That, he thought, wrould make a repre-
sentative committee, who could investigate the matter,
and make practical tests in one of the numerous galleries
that now existed. Sir Richard Redmayne wrote in
reply, after consulting the Home Office authorities, that
it was a good suggestion, and hoped it would be carried
out. The time had now arrived to set a practical test, •
and wishing that that meeting might terminate in a
sportsmanlike way, he would suggest that Mr.
Piggford’s apparatus should be brought into practical
test with the other apparatus. Then they would take
Dr. Haldane’s remarks in conjunction with the testu
made in the gallery. (Applause.)

Unknown Clays in Coal Mines.

A paper by Dr. J. W. Mellor, principal of the Stoke-
on-Trent Pottery School, was taken as read.

The paper was published in last week's Colliery
Guardian.

A vote of thanks was accorded to Dr. Mellor for his
contribution.

The meeting also expressed their thanks to the
president and council of the North Staffordshire
Institute for arranging the meeting; to the principal
and governors of the Mining School for the use of
rooms for the meeting; to the owners of collieries and
works who had agreed to their inspection by the
members; and to the chairman for presiding.

MINING ECONOMICS.

Mr. John Gibson has now furnished a written reply
to the discussion on his paper on “ Mining Economics
read recently before the Mining Institute of Scotland.*
From this we make some extracts.

The president (Mr. James Hamilton) had taken
exception to the phrase “ where the highest wages are
earned, the cost of production was usually the lowest.”
Mr. Gibson observes that his main object in writing
was to cause his fellow members to pause and think,
and paradox was used for that purpose. He had, how-
ever, no difficulty in accepting the president’s phrase
“ that high wages did not prevent success, nor low
wages ensure it.” The president had next asserted
that “ Mr. Gibson’s argument was in some parts rather
mixed, and much of it beside the mark ” in reference to
the statement in the paper that the rise in selling prices
of 50 per cent, between the years 1882 and 1911 was no
real evidence against the argument that increase of
wage rates might have the ultimate effect of reducing
the cost of production. The writer held that his thesis
was “ where (or when) wages were low, there was no
inducement to economy in labour,” and in support of
that he had put the following case :—If a miner whose
wage was |d. per day undercut 4 sq. yds. per shift, would
the president recommend the coal owner to instal a
coal cutter costing £400 capable of undercutting
150 sq. yds. per shift? If the miner’s wage w’as £1 per
shift, would the advice be the same? If not, why not?
That not unfairly showed the horns of his dilemma.

Mr. Hamilton further disagreed with the writer for
saying ‘‘ that the most backward coalfields are those
with the least natural difficulties and most valuable
seams,” and had taken him to task for generalisation.
On this point the author of the paper thinks, when all
was well, the ordinary sane managing director would
say : “ Our profits during the past dull year have been
good (a per cent.). They are likely to improve. Our
neighbour is paying no dividend. I shall not touch any
scheme involving capital expenditure promising prob-
lematical returns.” But in adversity his reasoning
would run thus : “ Our dividend in this boom year is
only a—b per cent., and is likely to disappear. Some-
thing must be done. Let me see your scheme for
development, for labour saving, and economy.” The
managing director deserved neither praise nor blame in
either case. The two views “ let well alone ” and
“ something must be done ” were those which all sane
men were alternately taking. The president seemed to
contend that capital and organisation were the great
factors. These produced good usual practice, but it
required necessity and adversity to engender new ideas
and to advance on usual practice. The history of the
Scottish oil shale industry was a striking example in
proof of this contention.

With respect to the housing question, what was
expressed in the paper briefly was : (1) that a better and
healthier miner could be got from a better house; and
(2) that a steadier and more self-respecting miner would
be got from a better house, paying a higher rent. These
two points were untouched by the criticism; they were
undeniable.. The president, in fact, had pointed to the
better class of houses being erected in Fife. That
statement admitted that improvement was desirable or
necessary. The point Mr. Hamilton had missed was
that only a small fraction of the miners lived in the
good houses; the great majority of them still lived in
the old insanitary erections, in which the standard of
living must be such as the writer described.

Coming now to the opinion expressed in the paper
that “ the coal owner’s primary business is to produce
coal, not to house workmen,” he (Mr. Gibson) could not
see his way even to modify that view. Did the gentle-
men who criticised it hold that the grocer was morally
bound to house his assistants, or the engineer his work-
men? On the contrary, if their capital was locked up
in housing, it could not be used to consolidate’ or extend
the business. If a coal owner sunk near a town or a
village where housing was as plentiful as was required,
he might not build at all. If he built in any circum-
stances, he did so for convenience, or as a regrettable
necessity—not in terms of a moral bond. He (Mr.
Gibson) thought that Scottish coal owners should stick
to their primary business as closely as possible, because,
inter alia, they had not done well in regard to housing
in the past. In house planning, two opposing factors
must be reconciled, namely, (1) to give a fair return for
the money, and (2) to give decent comfort to the work-
man. Some owners had made the first the main object,
with little success in the second, and vice versa. The
happy mean had been seldom achieved, because housing
was a totally different profession or trade from mining,
and required special knowledge, training, and undivided
attention. Let them look at the practical difficulties
inherent to,the change from bad to good housing. For
instance, an English gentleman in showing to the writer
some model dwellings had stated : ‘‘In the next lot we
build special steps in planning will be taken t'o prevent
the people from all living in the kitehen and leaving the
rest of the house uninhabited.” Again, keeping coals
in the bathroom was not an unknown practice. All

* See Colliery Guardian, April 17, 1914.