1898 - Coalmininghistorypa.org

1 ANNUAL, REPORT OF THE Off. Doc.accident happened at the main shaft and it became necessary to takethe men out through the second opening, it took at least five hoursto get up steam and then with the assistance of sinkers, men accustomedto the work of sinking shafts and operating buckets, themen in. the mine, wet and cliilled to the marrow, were brought to thesurface in a bucket. The main shaft from the Clark vein to Dunmorevein No. 2, had not been furnished with ladders, and the men workingin it were rescued one at a time by being tied to a rope and raisedup bodily to the Clark vein. During the late cold weather the icewas permitted to accumulate in the shaft to such an extent that itbjoke and destroyed the guides and the buntons and the carriagecould not be operated at all. It was removed and set aside. Theshaft was to some extent repaired and cleaned out and in lieu ofthe carriage there was substituted a hand windlass and a bucketsuch as are used in the ordinary work of sinking shafts. The buckethad no guides.I am asked to find that these appliances are safe and availablefor ready escape. I cannot do so. At the hearing I permitted anumber of witnesses experienced in mining to express their opinion asto the safety of the bucket as an appliance for escape. The overwhelmingweight of this testimony is against the defendant's contention.But entirely aside from the opinions of these witnesses Iam of the opinion that it is not such an appliance as should be suppliedfor this opening. The uncontradicted testimony in the caseshows that every mine in the district where the second opening consistsof a shaft, the shaft is fitted with a carriage or cage as an appliancefor escape. The shaft under consideration is 340 feet deep.The bucket in question is about three feet in diameter and three feetin depth and is capable of holding four men. It is without a guideand has no protector overhead. The evidence further shows thatwhen being raised or lowered the bucket is apt to swing from sidett- side and to strike the sides and timbers of the shaft. Few menare accustomed to travel in such a contrivance up and down a shaft340 feet deep and it does not require the opinion of an expert to saythat for the ordinary miner it is not safe. It may be available, and incase of emergency it would certainly be better than nothing. The(vidence further shows that its legitimate use is in -the sinking ofsliafts, when it is operated by experienced men, and that it is notused at any other mine in the district for the purpose contemplatedhere. It is true its use here is contemplated only in case of emergency,but, as already stated, at all the other mines in the district theajipliance used to meet the same kind of emergency is a cage.Thisi brings us to the consideration of the other alleged violationsof the mining law. On this branch of the case there are no disputedfacts. As has already been said, it was originally the intention of