The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1886-02-01

am N,npnIr alas nI.aAlo,.

matter Il tho Eewbwg disaster is entitled
10 respect and weight. The jury was
made I'D Of material far above the average
intelligent men having more or Lees
familiarity with mining, There is moth
Ing to indicate that any member Of the
Jury was prt JUDGED Vgainst the company
or anybody connected with it. The patient
and impartial inquiry, and the eforI
to make 1t thorough, leave no reason tc
suspect that the jury had any other ain
than 10 ascertain the cause Of the disaster
and rtcate ,ho responsibility where ii be-
longs. The severity Of the VERDICT is jus
titled by the evidence, which has shown
that
/. The precautions taken by the com
pauy were not sufficient
.. The Inspector OF Mines did his duty
= Tho instructions OF the Inspector OIL
Mines were rot Obryed.
4. The Provisions ii the Mining Act OIL
1883 were iistCrmded.
5. The Miuirg Actoi 1893 isnotadeqrate
for the protection Of the lives Of miners.
This places tho ,spousibiliIy on the
company and the Legislature. The greater
and moro jmmet iitc blame rests on the
company, which failed TO obey the Act Of
1851, rcluiliog Unemployment OF "a COM
petent ard practical oveEseer, or mining
boss" whose du'y, among other things, is
TO sec that the mine isplomry ventilated
and otherwise tt for men to work in. The
company, through its representative on
the spot, disregarded ltho instructions Of
the Inspector OF Mines, who found that
additional precautions were required and
informed the company what in bis judg-
ment was necessary TO be done. Unless
the company was desirouS of doing all
that lay in lis power to protect life in the
mine, 1t was cheaper to pay tho penalty
and take the risk Of an explosion which
might never como. For tho penalty pro.
yided by the act Is "not less than twenty
nor more than one hundred dollars, at the
discretion Of the jury, for each and every
such oatenso'-a punishment insignificant
as compared with the lnteEcstG at stake.
It's not to be supposed, Of coulRP, that
the 0rrel Company, or any other COM
pany, would not have incurred all the
necessary expense however great, or aban-
doned the ;lnine, II it had known that tho
choice lay between those alternatives on
the one hand and on tho other terrible
loss Of life and destruction Of ito own pro-
perry. l. may oven be that tho principal
olllcersofthe Company,whose headquarters
are In Baltimore, we're not aware OF the
real danger. This fact, however, II 1t be
fact, would mitigate only the moral
blame, not the legal responsibility. The
company had placed the mine in charge
OF Superintendent, for whose acts and
omissions IL is responsible.
1t Is possible that the Superintendent
did not Ogree with the Inspector OF Nline0.
But the law allows no option. Mine
operators cannot elect whether they will
or will not obey the instructions OF the In.
spector Of Mines. In tho absence Of m
appeal or the favorable judgment Of the
court upon any appeal, the Inspectors
orders must be obeyCd. As has been
said, the penalty for disobedienCe is so
light as TO be q triiltng with the subject
yet the act was intended to be obeyed, and
disobedlenCe will rise up in judgment
against the company in the proceedings
that will follow. There will probably be
a suit for damages for. every lilo lost in
that mine.
When the act Of lsS3!was passed there
was great difficulty to get through any act
at all Of Its general character. The Tsgis.
lature, very properly, did not desire 10
place upon mine operators unnecessary
burdens such as might seriously ombarrasS
those already In the business and diSCour.
age the further development Of the coal
deposits tf West Virginia. Perhaps the
act Of 1889 was all that could have been
accomplished at the time. West Virginia
had had little experience in shalt mining,
lightly estimated It's dangers, and had been
remarkably free from the Wholesale
slaughter which in other States has
aroused public sentiment.
1t may be doubted whether any other
State has had so mall a percentage Of loss
Of lie In It's mines in proportion to the
output But now West Virginia has had
lesson-one Of the most sorowful on re.
Cord-which teaches that she must bestir
herself II she would eaCape the common
fate. The poor fellows who lost thcirl lives
lave in their death done tho State this
service.
The evidence In the Newberg case does
not show ConClusively whether there was
or YES not Contributory negligence OH the
part Of ono or more OF the men In tho
mine. In the nature Of things this was
difficult to show. Tho most important
witnesses are dead Ills not improbable
that there was such negligence, Men be.
come familiar with danger and disregard
II. But IL Ia the part Of competent mine
boss to overcome this danger as far az pos.
slble, and Of the responsible operator to
reduce this danger to the minimum by
such precautions as experience suggests.
In this State, az in others, there Ia an In.
spectot Of Mines to contribute to the same
end. The services Of the Inspector Of
Mines, however intelligently and faith.
fully rendered, are Of little avail where his
instructions are disresatded, Us confess.
edly they we're at Newberg.
a Colieg,ah would Have Known,
Piillbatph Chronicle. Telegraph.
q A.. L. IL