27.07.2013 Views

COAL - Clpdigital.org

COAL - Clpdigital.org

COAL - Clpdigital.org

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

<strong>COAL</strong> TRADE COMPARISONS<br />

BASED ON ILLINOIS REPORT.<br />

The following excerpt from the Illinois coal report<br />

for 1904, besides presenting some interesting<br />

comparisons, shows that conditions in the state<br />

were much better last year than this, and that some<br />

of this year's important events in the trade, particularly<br />

in the matter of legislation, were at least<br />

partially foreseen:<br />

As one of the basic industries of the country.<br />

the business of coal mining continues strong and<br />

active. The year just closed has been in every<br />

respect the most prosperous for the Illinois miners.<br />

This state maintains its lead, notwithstanding the<br />

wonderful development of the past few years, as<br />

the second largest coal producer in the country.<br />

Figures for 1904 indicate an aggregate tonnage in<br />

excess of thirty-seven millions. This total, divided<br />

by the number of coal miners, gives an<br />

average per capita product of but a fraction less<br />

than 1,000 tons, an amount relatively greater than<br />

during any previous period. This showing is the<br />

more remarkable when compared with the per<br />

capjita product of foreign countries. For the<br />

United Kingdom it is 287 tons; Germany. 242 tons;<br />

France, 198 tons; and Belgium, 166 tons. The<br />

disparity in these figures shows that the miners employed<br />

in the United States are vastly more productive<br />

than are their European competitors. The<br />

difference in favor of the miner in America is not<br />

due, it is fair to say, to superior skill as a workman;<br />

on the contrary, it is but just to admit that,<br />

considered from the point of handicraft, the<br />

foreign and particularly the British miner is the<br />

better workman, in fact the best class of pick men<br />

in American mines today come from the British<br />

Isles. The American miner's superiority as a producer<br />

is explained in the fact that better and easier<br />

conditions of mining prevail here; besides, machinery<br />

is utilized to a greater extent in the mining<br />

of coal, as in other industrial departments in this<br />

country, than anywhere else In thicker coal<br />

seams of this state the necessity for the pick miner<br />

seems to have entirely disappeared. Even the<br />

physical exercise formerly required in drilling has<br />

been obviated through the introduction of machines<br />

for that purpose.<br />

The immediate commercial effect of this is shown<br />

in the diminished value of the output, which is most<br />

important when the nation's manufacturing power<br />

is considered. The country having access to the<br />

greatest supply of cheap coal is destined to lead in<br />

the struggle of nations. To this fact more, we<br />

believe, than to any other, can be justly ascribed<br />

the constantly increasing power of the American<br />

nation.<br />

There are employed in the coal mines of Great<br />

Britain nearly 900,000 men. and they produced<br />

last year fully fifty million tons of coal less than<br />

THE <strong>COAL</strong> TRADE BULLETIN. 43<br />

the 525.000 miners employed in the Uuited States:<br />

while the cost or value of the product, there was<br />

nearly $100,000,000 more. We select Great Britain<br />

for the purpose of comparison because it is the<br />

most advanced of European countries, and until<br />

quite recently was first in the list of manufacturing<br />

nations. Those who have had experience in<br />

both countries know that investments in coal properties<br />

yield very much larger profits there than<br />

here.<br />

Aside from those that are pecuniarily interested<br />

in the coal business, the chief concern of the<br />

humanitarian is the loss of lives incident to the<br />

operation of the mines. Mortality from different<br />

causes seems to keep pace with the volume of production.<br />

The year covered by this report exceeds<br />

all others, the number killed being 157, or 2.S7<br />

per 1,000 employes. This is more than one-half<br />

over the fatal accident rate in the British mines.<br />

The number of non-fatal accidents was 507, an increase<br />

of ninety-seven over the previous year.<br />

According to the table of classified causes, onehalf<br />

of the fatal and non-fatal accidents resulted<br />

from falling coal and rock. It is impossible to<br />

determine the per cent, of accidents listed under<br />

this head, due to the use of powder. Although the<br />

majority of them accrue in the districts where the<br />

method of blasting off the solid prevails. Whatever<br />

the causes, whether they result from the lack<br />

of knowledge in the preparation of blasts, the drilling<br />

of dead holes, the adulteration of explosives,<br />

the accumulation of dust on the roadways, blasting<br />

off the solid, or the indifference or carelessness<br />

of men accustomed to the dangers of the miner's<br />

occupation, the death rate particularly is entirely<br />

too high and some other measures should be tried<br />

to reduce it. It was hoped the law passed by the<br />

last general assembly, limiting the quantity of<br />

powder to be used in any one blast, would diminish<br />

the fatalities heretofore due to that source. The law<br />

has been in force nearly two years and the number<br />

of fatal accidents, instead of diminishing, has,<br />

in fact, increased. Either its requirements have<br />

not been observed by the miners, or the facts are<br />

strangely out of joint with our expectations. Of<br />

several propositions that have been offered, two<br />

are worthy of some consideration. The first, proposed<br />

by representatives of coal operators, is that<br />

the present run of mine system be abolished and<br />

the miners required to under-cut or shear the coal.<br />

To require that all coal be undermined would.<br />

to a very great extent, dispense with the necessity<br />

for powder and naturally avoid the accidents due<br />

to the use of explosives; and that regardless of<br />

whether the present system of paying for mining<br />

coal is to be continued or not. The objections<br />

urged to this plan are two-fold: First, that the<br />

mine run system of this state is provided for by<br />

contract, presumably satisfactory to both interests

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!