The Birmingham age-herald., 1907-02-27
PERCY DISCUSSES
 THE MINING BILL Presents the Objections of the
 Mine Owners A HEARING HERE TODAY Chairman of House and Senate Com mittees Will Come to Birmingham to Hear Mine Operators
 Side of Question.
A HEARING HERE TODAY

IhlS Dill comes up for consideration by the committee this morning. Mir Percy will endeavor to return to Birmingham in time to be present at the conference in regard to the mine bill Representa- tive Block of Wilcox. chairman of the house committee on mining and Senator Wilson of Blount, chairman of the senate committee, will be in Birmingham today to meet number of operators who wish to discuss the bill.
 The conference will be held in the office of J. C. Maben, president of the sloss- Sheffield Steel and Iron company. Before leaving the city yesterday afternoon MT. Percy gave the following outline of the reasons why the mine operators object to the measure:
 State Mine Inspector.
 ''The first objection to the proposed min Ing bill is that 1t undertakes to legislate out of office on May l. 1907, j. NJ. Gray, the present chief mine inspector and James Hillhouse. the assistant mine in spector. Under the present law Gray holds until 1909 and Hillhouse until 1908. Either of them can be removed for in- competency.
 "The first section of the new bill ere ates an additional mine Inspector, malI- ing four. and makes the terms of all of them expire on May l. 1907 which has the effect. as before stated, of legsating out of office Gray and Hillhouse long be- fore their terms would otherwise ex pire.
 Under the present law there is a board of examiners appointed by the governor. who examine and give certificates To mine foremen. There are no other em- ployes at coal mines who are required to al nd min The law ates board of examiners to be appointed, not by the governor, but by the board of inspectors. and require superintend- ents, assistant superintendents, mine fore men. assistant mine foremen. fire bosses and hoisting engineers to stand examina- tions before the board and have ceru- ficates issued by such board. The board of examiners under the proposed law only meets twice a year and Is only In session for six days at each meeting. The effect of the new law would be To make superintendents and assistant super intendents, who as rule do not work in the mnes but have control of out side operations. stand examinations be- fore the board of examiners. and as two of the members of the board are to be practical miners and another member IS to be a hosting engineer, 1t is easily conceivable that the United Mine Work CTS organization might get control of the board or eNanlDtTS Hllu ullbHh HhNb 'iiN right to say who should be superintehd- ents and assistant superintendents.
 "Furthermore. as a result of the pro vision that hoisting engineers and Ire bosses should have certificates there Is created a limited body of men on whom the operations of the coal mines would depend If the hoisting engineers should 20 out on strike the operators would be absolutely helpless because while 1t would be easy to find large number of men qualified to run hostlng engines. the new men could not be put 10 work until they had stood an examination be- fore and procured certificates from the board of examiners. which only meets once every six months.
 Age Limit.
 Under the proposed law, no man could be a superintendent, assistant superln- tendent, mine foreman assistant mine foreman unless he should be 23 years or age, and have had five years practical experience as n coal miner or super intendent at mines in this state. This provision would require the superintend- ents, assistant superintendents. mine fore men and assistant mine foremen to be recruited from the ranks of practical coal diggers and would deprive the oper- ator of the opportunity to employ as as- sistant superintendents and asslstant mine foremen graduates of technological schools like Auburn; and furthermore as the su- perntendents, assistant superintendents, mine fcremen and assistant mine foremen are required to have five years practical experience at mines in this state the proposed bill would deprive the opera tors of the opportunity to procure high ly skilled men to fill these positions from other states
 "'rhe operators further object to the proposed bill because 1t gives to the mine inspectors autocratic power to prescribe the way In which mines shall be opened and operated and If the requirements of the Inspectors are unreasonable or un- just no redress or opportunity for in quiry into the reasonableness of the orders of the inspector is afforded the operator Under the present law the mine inspec- tors may make any regulations they deem proper to protect the health safety and lives Of employees. If the orders Of the mine inspectors are regarded as unrea- sonable by the mine owner and the mine owner refuses to comply on the ground of unrea condolences. the mine inspector can go into the probate court and have the req easonableness of the order made by him determined by speedy trial and if the order Is determined to be reason able then the mine operator must com ply with 1t under heavy penalty The mine operators think they should have the right to test the reasonableness of the order Of the inspectors ny sucu court proceeding and think 1t improper that the inspectors should have the au- thority given by this bill to close the mines if it's method of operation does not meet with his approval, without any trial. In view of the fact that the mines are as a rule, operated by men of aq much or more skill and experience than is possessed by the mine inspectors there should be some provision for court proceedings where the mine inspectors and mine operators differ as to the proper method of operating mine.
 Shot Frers.
 ",rhe proposed bill further undertakes to require sprinkling in dusty mines and to require the operators to employ shot firers in all mines, where at present the shots are fired by the miners them selves. In many mines the operators frers would impose unnecessary ex- pense. Furthermore. the question as to whether dusty mines should or should not be sprinkled is one about which experts differ. Under the present law the mine inspectors may require any prac- tlce which they deem unsafe 10 be changed. The operators contend that 1t Is better that the mine inspectors should have the right to prescribe such prac- tice as the varying conditions in the diff ferent mines may require, rather than that the legislature should undertake to prescribe a get of arbitrary rules apply in to all mines about the desirablity Of which there is a great difference of ex- pert opinion