The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1898-03-09

IL. E4s
the petitioner. Mine Inspector Edward
Roderick, and w. ]. Hand and I. II.
Eurns represented the comrany.
Both sides submitted numerous re-
quests for findings of fact and law and
all three attorneys made arguments at
length. Mr.. Hand, the first to be heard,
contended that the reasonable and gen.
orally accepted Interpretation of the act
permits company to work twenty
men in a seam to which a second OPEN
ing is being made. The fact that the
law fixes the number at not more than
twenty and that only eight men at the
most can be worked in driving tun-
mel leaves the reasonable implication
that If the company sees fit it may
use men in mining coal while second
opening Is under way, the number al
together employed not to exceed twen-
ty.
Speaking on the allegation of the in
spector that the faculties for exit in an
emergency at the Richmond mine are
not what are required. Mr.. Hand
called attention to the uncontradicted
testimony that three times during the
past six years the main shaft has
been disabled and use of the secondary
the men were gotten out safely and
with little or no inconvenience.
AN EMERGENCY EXIT.
The Richmond colliery, he argued, is
distinguished from the average col
liery by the fact that the secondary
shaft is used only as an emergency exit
for the men. In other and larger col
lieries it is utilized for hoisrins and low
ering men and supplies, To keep an
engineer constantly on duty and main
tain steam in the boilers at all times
for the mere purpose of being prepared
to hoist in a possible emergency, the
twenty-eight men employed in the
Richmond, would entail such a hard
ship as would make the operation of
the colliery improbable and If the in
spector's Interpretation of the law, in
this regard was insisted upon the COM
pany might have to close down the
mine,
The company has engines, boil
ers. cage and every other necessary ap-
pliance in the secondary shaft and if
their use Is required 1t is only a mat
ter of an hour or so before steam can
be raised and everything in readiness
for hosting the men. On the three oc-
casions when the men had to be hoist
ed by way of the second shaft it was
proven in practical manner that the
company maintains what the law calls
for safe and available" means of exit
by second opening. Owing to the
natural ventilation Of the mine, and as
was proven by the three practical tests
mentioned, men can remain without the
slightest inconvenience at the foot of
the second shaft for an indefinite
length of time, without question sew
eral days, even with the fan stopped.
Steam can be gotten up in the boilers
inside of an hour. These being
proven facts it remains, Mr.. Hand con-
tended, that the company is and has
been complying with every reasonable
requirement of the law.
WHY BUCKET IS USED.
AS to there being no cage no
cage in the shaft at present,
MIR. Hand explained. that a bucket was
put in use while the repairs to the
damaged bunting are in progress. The
cage will be replaced when the repairs
are completed. In addition to what it
has already done the company is will
ing, Mr.. Hand said, to continue the sys-
TEN of iron ladders the whole length
of the secondary shaft, if court advises
it.
Mr. Burns followed with a technical
treatise on the act in question. He
went so far as to intimate very strong
ly that the act was unconstitutional,
HE was not going to attack 1t on that
ground, he said, because he thought
that although it may not be strictly
constitutional 1t is a good law.
In passing upon law, he contended,
the act must be taken for what it says.
This act being in derrogation of the
common law, the implications must
rebound to the party legislated against.
Applying this principal to the disput-
ed question, as to the employment of
men in a seam to which second open-
ing is being made IT would demand the
reading contended for by the company
He also held that in an Interpretation
of the act the different circumstances
of different mines, for instance, the
difference of conditions between a mine
employing twenty-eight men and one
employing 1000, men should be taken
into consideration, just as much as the
difference of conditions in a mountain
road and a paved street would be con-
sidered in negligence case.
MIR. WILLARD'S ARGUMENT.
Ex-Judge Willard closed the argu-
ments with an hours elaboration Of the
petitioners twenty-three requests for
findings of fact and law. In dwelling
upon the Interpretation of a statute he
said that an act should be construed
for what it means. The provision in
regards to working twenty men, he
said, meant the company's right to
work twenty men in a vein that has no
second opening was exhausted when
the gangway and return road from the
foot of the shaft to the front where the
second opening begins, are completed.
In the vein in question the connecting
roadways have been completed for oV-
er thirteen months, he argued, and
when they were completed the COM
pany had a right to work only such
men as are employed in making the
second opening.
In pointing out the danger to men
employed in Dunmore No. vein under
present conditions, he asked what
means of exit they would have should
the main shaft, the only opening, take
fire. He followed this up by asking If
1t was reasonable to argue that the law
contemplated exposing men unneces-
sarily to such a fate as would follow
this contingency. The reasonable, the
literal and the true Interpretation OF
the act, Judge Willard contended, was
that the twenty men were to be ex-
posed to this danger only under the
necessity of driving the tunnels TO con-
meet the main ahaf with tha sacond