The daily silver state. [volume] (Winnemucca, Nev.) 1903-1907, 1905-12-14
TIMELY

III
BY submitting 10 arpl.rdtion tne diner
CAGES arising vul OF lDe snolnrer ) law,
the Uni0d a1ine worAers Oh iilnoiS an
the lnlols Coat Operators Assoeid.io.
nave Sci d wnofesone example. a fe"
weens ago the uIspute mad siven rise -
q preach Of relations awnIcn, it .l.en
seemed would oniy De nealed af,er a .on.
ana ,eulous suiAe. enlaiiing The usual.
..dlsaslrous results. mat sucn a depior
aple issue was aver.eo Is a trioule ~
the cause Of arpllratlon and a co1nplsnent
10 the wise counsel wnicn prevaiied 4
favor OF that course.
Judge George Gray, who was chosen a.
referee, heard arguments from represen
.~tatives of the conlenoing organizations
and Immediately maiied MS oecis'on -
the Springfield Marine Bank, wnere !
was neld un,il Tie wages OF the snotnreAs
and tue conditions unoer wnicii lnes
should worn, had been settled. Judee
Gray $ decision is at once compre~ens-v
and unbiased. After reviewing The Judi
ciaf questions involved in the dispu.e,
they are dismissed as foreign to the aues
tion,a wnicn is thus sac.inctly dennea
-.Whetner in good conseienee and equity
under ali the circumstances of the as.
the miners SIIOQiQ ICiiitOdAoO thS oP~
tors for the 5outiay Necessary to emp,,.
the snotfirers required by law"
Leading up to the decision. Judge Graz
observes that -
aAt"uL TIE ausy of a shot-nrer, as ~
) scrioed- NY Lie act, We're mercy 20 ~
aspect there could be no doubt that sue
police regulation, aitnougn II imposes Oh
sadd1ttunai burden upon The operaeoi'
would not AFFECT the mutual Obligations
of the contract But the act says hat l.
y shall beothe duty of the snol-firers to m
.spectS and do all the firing of all bids.s
prepared ina practical worAmanilhe
manner In said mine or mines
Inspection alone By expert men EN-
pioy~u Tor lual purpose, " tie snc.s
prepared by tue miners. before t.ey a'~
fred ny the miners. would go far towari
/. promoting the safety OF those engaged Ii
mining. and In a large part achieve In
purpose of theA act. such. Inspection,
8 though requiring the employment of the
same number of men, and enlalling an
Y equal or. nearly equal expense on lhe Up
era Uors as would inspection and nr.1,
also is no more amenable 10 criticism ..
complaint than the inspection raqu r q
by Law to- ASCERTAIN the prescnce of ,rN
damp or of o.her conditi.ns dangerous !
lining operations. I1A
r. NO good reason can be urged, in ny
a. Il. on, why the expense of any such in
stection should be imposed OF the miners
7 Vt nsan@expense made by la " incideals
10 the conduct of mining operations.
.Does the nIers fac. ten. that in ad-
dition to inspection. the inspector IS re-
Sequfred to fire the shot, SO substantial
affect or modify the terms of the con-
tract 1xBAto make II equitable that the
miners should wholly reimburse the Up
orators for the outlay in employing said
inspectors? 1t really relieves the miner
OF no appreciable labor, and of little re
sponsibt3fy.> and it seems in 'ontestab.e
that the firing done by these inspectors
and better methods employed. inure to
tie bench Of the operator. SO ian us, TO
some extent at least. to compensa:e MIN
for the increased expense ovar the o.d
method.
ION the whole. 1t seems to me- ssiu,t-
able and just that until experience is &C
Quired in the matter Of employment of
shot-irers. provided for by the act. ONE
hAlf of the expense necessary to their
employment should be reimbursed to the
Operators by the miners"
RThis compromise will not only avert
immediate misfortune. but will settle the
matter for a period of nine months, which
should be ample time for the demonstra-
ton Of the wisdom or folly of the shot
f1rer measure. n..