1898 - Coalmininghistorypa.org

No. 11. BUREAU OF MINES. Ivpillars previous to abaiidoiimeut, so loiig as not more than twentypersons are employed therein at any one time.In their contention the defendants not only overlook but utterlyignore the fact that the Richmond No. 3 is not a new mine, but onewhich has been opened and operated for a number of years; that theywere not opening any new lift of said mine but that the lift in questionhas been opened for months; that the main shaft has been sunkto Dunmore vein No. 2, and that said vein has been opened andoperated and coal mined for the market therefrom for more thanthirteen months, and that the operations now proposed to be carriedon by them in said vein have nothing whatever to do with workdone for the purpose of making communication between two outlets.Under acticle 15 of the act of 181)1, we are required to prohibitby injunction or otherwise the working of any mine or colliery inwhich any person is employed or is permitted to be for the purpose>f working in contravention of the provisions of this act. Tlie employmentof pei'sons by the defendants in Dunmore vein No. 2, beforethe slope or the connection between the two openings iS'completed,for the purpose of working therein and mining coal therefromlor the jnarket, is clearly in contravention of the provisions of theact of 1891 already (juoted, and there is nothing for us to do but toenforce the law.It is contended that if these views be enforced the operation of thedefendants' mine will become unprotltable. The answer to this contentionis that the statute in question was enacted to provide for thehealth and safety of persons employed in and about the anthracitecoal mines of Pennsylvania and for the protection and preservationof property connected therewith. As was said by Judge Dana inCommonwealth ex rel. Hlewitt, Inspector of Mines, vs. Tompkins, ILuz. Leg. l?eg.341, "The application and enforcement of the law ina case where from circumstances beyond the operator's control,compliance with its provisions is rendered impossible, may workhardship, but when the question is brought to a practical issue, iscapital or human lifeto be sacrificed, can the answer be doubtful?"In the present case the enforcement of a compliance with the lawwill no doubt make the defendants' mine less profitable, but it willmake it also correspondingly more safe. The question of profitis not a factor in the case; the question of safety is; and unless thedefendants carry on their operations in such a manner and with suchappliances as the law directs, they must not mine at all.A number of requests for finds of fact and conclusions of law weresiubmitted by counsel for the respective parties. These rerjuests willbe filed herewith.I find as requested in the plaintiff's seventeen requests for findingsof fact. Of the plaintiff's requests for conclusions of law, the first,third, fourth, sixth, seventh, eighth and tenth are affirmed. The