The evening herald. [volume] (Shenandoah, Pa.) 1891-1966, 1892-10-03

by the HERALD In discussing the sub
jet the secretary says the fact cannot b.
ques ioRed that many of the accidents, es.
pecisly in tho mines, are occasioned BY
the negligence of the miners t emseve..
and after they have had ample warning oi
danger. Notwithstanding these warning.
they have decided to continue TO work and
assume the risks.
The Secretary quotes from the reports oi
Mine Inspectors publ hing the folowin.
axtract from the report of Mine Inspector
Will m Stein, o. town:
| I'VE have good mine law and many of our
miners advocate its revision. and yet they are
violating its provisions every day, and when we
| consider the fact that If the workingmen would
| have observed and obeyed the law during the
year 1890, we would have had only eighteen
deaths to record instead OF sixty-six. Surely
| these figures ought TO be an incentive for them
to obey the law, instead of clamoring for It's
| revision, am also aware OF the fact that
some niue fOremen do not observe the law as
| they should, and consequently contribute
| towards the accidents but the largest per.
centage Of deaths are the results Of careless
| ness on the part of the workingmen them
| selves"
FIR m Mine Inspector McMurtrie's re-
port the following extract ia taken:
The number of fatal accidents for the year
1890 was thirty-nine as against ifty-two for the
previous year, which is decrease OF thirteen:
almost fifty per centum Of the fatal accidents
were caused by falls OF roofs and sides. This
being the case every year it goes to show that
more lives are lost from this cause than any
other, for, as in former years, that large mum.
Der OF both fatal and non-fatal accidents would
| be ayerted II the unfortunates themselves
would exercise more care.
In following up these reports Secretary
Stewart Gays. "lf the fear OF injury, or of
injuring others does not deter employees
from taking well-known and reasonable
risks, when neither they nor their fellow
employees can obtain pecuniary relief from
tier employers, would they not be more
careless II the rule of DUTY was so changed
that employees could obtain redress from
tneir employers, even though their injuries
were the result Of their own negligence or
the negligence of those employed with
them2
On the other hand, suppose that such
law was enacted, would not employers
decline to employ all negligent or careless
persons2 Would not employees who were
retained be more secure against accident
than they are now2 Again if more gid
rule of duty was imposed on employers
and they observed it, would not employees.
resizlng their inability to procure employ,
ment if they disregard the lives of those
who labored with them, and were careless
IN the use of their employers property, be
less negligent in tbs future This is the
other tide OF the question and must not be
overlooked
The gravity of the subject, we appre
hend, is not fully realized by many who
appeal to the Legislatures to establish the
legal responsibility of the two classes.
Nothing seems easier TO some persons than
for Courts and Legislatures to prescribe Tor
specific evils. In practice, nothing hardly
is more difficult. Society is a complicated
thing the working OF the human will
cannot be foretold and compassed by law"
Secretary Stewards discussion of the
subject Of liability of employers covers
over one huLdred and fifty pages. The
article cannot be given jus ice in other than
pamphlet or book form 1t would be we'll
il some of our Workingmen would try to
secure copy of the report from the de- |
partment at Harrisburg and read it |