The Scranton tribune. [volume] (Scranton, Pa.) 1891-1910, 1901-03-07
Paw Not Too Liberal.

Besides, | said that the state Of Pennsylvania
&, rich enough, and the legislature Is willing
TO pay the mine inspectors fair salary ana
that to as many inspectors as they think are
needed. Compared with the pay received by
an English mine Inspector, who receives salary
Of 5000 year (and after twenty years service
is retired on half pay), the present pay is not
too liberal Mr.. Fcrrehec said that some OF
the members thought that even $1,000 year
was too high. and wanted to make the salary
500 per month, but that he had refused to IN
corporate that salary in his bill, as he thought
it was too low. ] remarked that such members
know nothing about the duties Of the mine in
spectors they would not think they were
oyerpaid. said that knew mine iorcmen who
were getting $3.50 month"; and the pay of fire
bosses ranged from S7j to S05 per month, while
the inside supcrintcndcnts were receiving from
ZOO TO $500 per year. l think | laughed
at the idea OF paying Il mine inspector 500 per
month, while the salary Of 5000 per year had
been paid the inspectors since ln7O, and the
dangers in coal mining had doubled, or possibly
treblcd, during that time.
When ! had finished talking Mr. Garner spoke
to the effect that he represented a local Of
miners that wanted 10 increase the number of
inspectors from eight 10 twcnty-four, and to pay
them salary OF 81 200 per year" l said that
il he represented such local (Which | did not
believe, they were raising their hands against
the welfare Of Others, and that the old adage
still true, that "Chickcns come home to
roost," and that as true as they raised their
hands against Others they would find that others
would raise their hands against them. Mr.. Gar.
ner replied by saying: Don't you think that
is rather strong language" ! thought a mo.
ment, knowing that | doubted his veracity, and
said "Perhaps / have used rather strong Ian.
guage."
q doubted Mr.. Gamers statement from in
formation received at my home in liazleton
that "the miners wanted more inspectors, wanted
TO change the term from five TO three years and
wanted them elected by the people, but were
not asking for a reduction in salary)
Never Urged Reduction in Salary.
had considerable more conversation with
Nr. terrebee about the inconsistency OF the
United WoIimen (if the Garner statement was
Correcth in asking for the reduction in salaries,
while one OF their chief tenets is, "Thc greatest
good to the greatest number" but never have
they been known to urge the reduction in salary
! said 'Mr. FeTebee, | will be glad to give
you any assistance in my power II you change
your bill 10 read ten instead of twentyiour; or
| would prefer to see your bill asking for assist,
ants 10 four OF the inspectors, one each for
shsmokn, Shenandoah, Wilkcs-Barre and Pitts
ton, and rather than help your present bill
would help you TO get eight assistants, one
for each inspection district Said assistants
should be from the ranks and receive a salary
Of $3.50 per month and expenses, with the only
qualification OF being the possessor Of a mine
foreman certificate"
Mr.. Ferrebee said: "Then you are against
my bill as II standsi" l said; According tc
my best judgment there is need Of inspectors
in the anthracite coal field" I did not know
for several days that Mr., Garner had taken um
bragg at my remarks and was dumbfoundet
when ! read in the Saturday Philadelphia paper,
what a bad man | was, and that | had mad,
such vllainous charge against the miners.
could not make the insulting remarks without
insulting myself, as | myself am a coal miner
having no trade. In my younger days | per
formed the hard work of a miners laborer anC
later the dangerous work OF an anthracite
miner. I have never forgotten those days, anC
think that | am competent to appreciate tht
condition of the miners OF the present day.
In conclusion wish to say that think MIR
Garner is honest in the statement he has made