1898 - Coalmininghistorypa.org

lii ANNUAL REPORT OF THE Off. Doc.tion of luiuing iu the Dunuiore vein No. 2 until said second openingtherefrom was completed. .Aside from fitting the main shaft fromthe Clark vein to the Dunmore vein xs^o.appears to have been paid to2 with ladders, no attentionhis suggestions, until a few days beforethis bill was filed, when work looking to the completion of theslope already started from Dunmore vein No. 2 was commenced bydriving down from the Clark vein.At the time the preliminai-y injunctionwas served there were five men engaged in driving thisslope from tht? Clark vein and sixteen men were engaged iu miningcoal from the open chambers of Dunmore vein No. 2.The defendants contend that so long as they do not employ morethan twenty men iu mining coal iu the Dunmore vein No. 2, and whilethey are engaged iu driving the slope or second opening to said vein,they are complying with the letter as well as the spirit of the law.They assert that such has been the general and uniform constructionot section 1, article 4, of the act of 18D1. I know of no such construction.Haddock vs. Commomvea lth^ 1U3 Ta. 243, relied upon bythe defendants, does not_s iistain their contention. In that case itappears that the first and third seams' of the mine in which menwere employed in mining coal for the market, had second openingsand that in the fifth seam of the mine a number not exceedingtwenty were engaged in working a gangway or gangways to connectwith the second openiug which had not yet been completed insaid seam. The plaintifis sought to restrain the defendants frommining coal iu the first and third seams until the openiug of gangwayin the fifth seam had been completed. But the Supreme Courtheld that so long as not more than twenty persons were employedin the fifth seam in working a gangway towards the second openingthe court had not power to interfere with the work iu the other seamswhich admittedly had proper openings. On the oither hand in Commonwealthex rel. Williams vs. Bonuell, et al., 8 Phila. 534, it was expresslydecided that the proviso of the third section of the act of1870 does not authorize the production of coal for market under thepretext of making another openiug thi'ough coal. I cannot do betterthan quote the language of the learned judge (Harding) who wrotethe opinion in the case:"If we omit then in Die proviso all that is cumulative, and doesnot refer to other specitic matters, and read only that relating to asecond opening through the coal,—the terms openings and outletsare clearly synonymous—the language of the proviso will be tlius:'This section shall not apply to any working for the purpose of makinga communication between two or more outlets, so long as notmore than twenty persons are employed at any one time in the saidworking.'Adojjting this as the correct interpretation of the statute,the inquiry is still extended as to how the 'twenty persons' shallI