Frostburg mining journal. [volume] (Frostburg, Md.) 1871-1913, 1903-02-21

the SESSIONS Oh 1870 ana 1870 ~ tlldilSt
the method OF appointment by making
the Inspector elective. In the session of
1900 we passed ii bill through the Senate
giving the local executive board of the
United Mine Workers control of the APP
pointment by requiring that the Gov
ernor select the Inspector from Il liS'
furnished by said board This bill was
defeated III the House.
We rndeavOrpd to effect the change i'll
the system of selecting the Inspector be-
cause we had reason to believe that the
Inspector appointment had always been
brought about, either directly or IN
directly, through company influence,
and would continue so as long as this
system prevailed by virtue of the power
and influence they could bring to bear
upon the Executive of the State. His
appointment being thus brought about,
ii was to he expected that he would more
or less respect their wishes. The failure
of either of the several Inspectors to en-
force the law of 1898 suStainS this con
tentlOn.
The present law apparently is charac-
teriZed with the same defect. L am IN
formed that not one of its new features
Is enforced and that the miners have not
realized any difference wha soever Ill the
way of results. If this Is not correct,
would be pleased to be contradictcd. 1t
should not be SO. The recent Grand
Jury, portion of the county press, the
authors of the present law and other
persons have proclaimed this new law to
be il great improvement on all the pre-
vious laws, and if so | would very much
like to see the improvement made mani
fest in actual results to the miners. 1t
j., and ,,nsh 1aSIrpl lnlnrnVp-
ment of the mining law of 1878, as was
also the act of 1898 which the present
one repealed.
Its chances for enforcement ought to
be much stronger than those of the law
Of 1898, because newspaper agitation Is
in favor of instead of against It, and the
misrepresentation among the miners as to
the act of the Grand jury and Court,
ought to, and | trust will result i'll Il
speedy and thorough enforcement of all
ITS provisions This would demonstrate
the possibilities of the Act of 1898, which
| am inclined to believe are as practical
and beneficial, if not more so, than those
of the present law.
In this connection / am forced to re-
Spectfully differ with the Grand Jury,
the portion of the public press, the
authors of the bill and others who have
declared it to be an improvement over all
previous laws, and i'll so doing | do not
wish to be understood aS desiring to de-
tract the slightest credit from the law or
the men who secured its enactment. On
the contrary, | will gladly join them i'll
an endeavor to bring about Its thorough
enforcement, which would certainly
make conditions in and about the mines
an emphatic improvement on those pre-
viouslv and presently existing.
\ friendly, good-natured, public dis
cusSion of these matters will tend to
bring about this much desired result and
acqualut the public mind with the ur-
gent need Of reforms that can be and
should have been before met through
lust execution of the laws.
This new law, as L said before, Is il
great Improvement on all mining laws of
this State prior to the Act of 1898. AS a
plain, practical, operative measure for
the Georges Creek miners | do not
agree that it is an improvement on the
law which it repealed. | have carefully
analyzed it section by section, phrase by
phrase, and word by word. There is
much more of it than the law of 1898.
| There are many additional sections, Civ
| ing in detail what i'll substance was as
| rigidlv required under the act repealed.
Much of the ceremony and detail re-
| uured by this new law, while necessary
| in the mines of Ohio and Pennsylvania
| from whose statutes these portions We're
| copied for the ventilation of their mines
and the prevention of accident by eX-
plosion, are wholly irrelevant to the
| miners of Georges Creek.
The law of 1898 required that the In
| spectur be practical miner, possessing
| such knowledge as would enable him to
properly ventiIate and regulate the coal
| mines by eXpelling such noXiouS gases
and other elements as would interfere
with pure and thorough ventilation. 1t
gave him power to order such changes
as he deemed essential i'll the ventilating
apparatus, and if not complied within
ten DAYS from said notice he could close
| down said mine or part of mine lacking
proper ventilation.
This new law, with all its details, gives
him no such power.
The old law provided that where the
Grand jury found the Inspector derelict
or inefficient i'll duty, they could recon-
mend his dismissal i'll their findings, and
| he Governor, upon receipt OF same, was
compelled to act and immediately APP
point hi, successor. The new law
| directs tlt bIHlitl W It'll
| before them each term of Court, but
takes from them the right of dismissal as
conferred by the old law.
The Act of 1898 required that the In
spactOr visit the mines and weigh sew
eral cars of coal on scales once every
month, while the new one only requires
Il performance of this duty every two
| months.
The new law countenanceS and en-
cuurages docking by distinctly saying
! they cannot dock miner over 800
| pounds on ii car, while the other law, if
| strictly construed and rigidly enforced,
| prohibited them from taking one pound
| of coal from any miner under any cir
cunstances, but positively required that
! he he given every pound of coal ON car.
The embodying of this docking feature
is much to be deplored and It's purport
| from the standpoint of our State Senator
and delegates as representatives of the
people is difficult TO understand. A
more Infamous and outrageous practice
| than that of docking, which has been and
is still being forced upon many of the
miners of Georges Creek, cannot be
imagined The principles of common
| honesty between men in themselves
ought to make impossible such practices
III civilized community. There is no
| excuse for its indulgence.
| The farcical pretense that it is neces-
| Sary as preventative against careless
| Il, +,>ft . l.,