COAL - Clpdigital.org

ILLINOIS OPERATORS AND MINERS TO DI­
VIDE THE INCREASED EXPENSE OF
PRODUCTION DUE TO THE SHOT
FIRERS' LAW.
The coal operators and miners of Illinois will
divide the increased cost of production due to the
shot firers' law which became effective July 1. On
that date, as announced in the last issue of THE
COAL TRADE BULLETIN, all the mines owned by the
members of the Illinois Coal Operators' Association
and practically all of the other mines in the
state except those worked on the "long wall" plan
were closed. Previous to this the operators accepted
the proposal of the miners to submit the
question of increased cost to arbitration. Messrs.
H. N. Taylor and A. J. Moorsehead were chosen to
represent the operators and the miners selected
H. C. Perry and W. D. Ryan, of their state organization.
These gentlemen agreed upon as arbitrator,
Judge George Gray, of Delaware, who was a
member of the anthracite strike commission in
1902 and who has filled other important positions
on national and international arbitration commissions.
The meeting with Judge Gray was held at
Wilmington, Del., on July 3. The decision was
mailed under seal to Ernest E. Helmie, cashier
of the Springfield Marine Bank, who held it until
the executive boards had decided the wages of the
shot firers and the conditions under which they
should work. These having been agreed to, the
decision was then opened.
Judge Gray, after giving a resume of the agreement
of April 4, 1904, between the miners and
operators, the passage of the shot rirers law and
its provisions, and the subsequent meetings of
the operators and miners, and the proposal of the
miners to arbitrate the question, says:
"The duties of these shot firers were, in other
sections of the act, prescribed in detail, as also
a penalty for refusal or failure to do the things
required by any section of the act, on the part of
the persons therein required to do them. That
this act was a police regulation, within the power
of the state to enact, cannot be, and is not, disputed.
The operators, however, contend that,
although they are required and expect to conform
to this law, the effect of it is to materially change
the obligations of tbe said contract of April, 1904,
inasmuch as it relieves the miner from the actual
shooting of the shots, and in consequence thereof
imposes upon the operators the burden of employing,
at their expense, additional men to fire
the shots in every chamber of the mine. They
therefore demand that the miners should reim­
THE COAL TRADE BULLETIN. 37
tence of the state to prescribe for the mining of
coal, they are literally performing their contract
as long as they 'drill and blast coal in accordance
with the state mining law of Illinois' of which the
act in question is part.
"They also contend that the practical operation
of the law would impose no additional burden on
the operators, inasmuch as, under the present system,
where the shots are fired by the miners
somewhat indiscriminately, as each miner may
conclude his work, the drivers, the other dav
laborers in the mine, cage men, hoisters and car
handlers, are compelled to stop work during fractions
of the eight-hour day, varying from a quarter
to a half hour, which, under the contract, they
are required to work, whereas, when the shot
firers, provided by the act, do the work, it is done
at the close of the full eight hours, and no time
is thus lost. They also contend that, as only
three or four shot firers would be required to each
mine, the operators would be more than compensated
for the outlay in employing them.
"As the case is presented to the umpire, it is
not necessary to consider what the legal effect of
this legislative act of the state of Illinois may be,
upon the obligation of the contract of April 4, 1904.
"Whether the actual firing of the shots by the
miners was a substantial part of the contract on
their part, and if so. what effect the subsequent
law making it impossible of performance had upon
the rights of the parties to the contract, or
whether the state law violated the contract clause
of the constitution of the United States as impairing
the obligation of the contract, are judicial
questions to be determined by a judicial tribunal.
"A different and single question is presented to
the umpire; that is whether in good conscience
and equity, under all the circumstances of the
case, the miners should reimburse the operators
for the outlay necessary to employ the shot firers
required by law.
"If the duty of a shot firer, as prescribed by the
act, were merely to inspect, there could be no
doubt that such police regulation, altnough it imposes
an additional burden upon the operator,
would not affect the mutual obligations of iiie
contract. But the act says that it shall be the
duty of the shot firers 'to inspect and do all the
firing of all blasts, prepared in a practical workmanlike
manner in said mine or mines.' We are
to assume that this act was passed in good faith
to protect the lives of miners and others employed
in the mines and permit the general safety of
mining operation. As such it deserved the com­
mendation and suport of all good citizens m the
burse the operators for this increased cost in the state.
production of coal.
"Inspection alone by expert men employed for
"The miners on the other hand contend that, that purpose, of the shots prepared by the miners,
this being a police regulation within the compe­ before they are fired by the miners, would go far