PREVENTION OF MAJOR DISASTERS IN COAL MINES

FRIDAY, MAY 2, 1952

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON

EDUCATION AND LABOR,
Washington, D. C.

The subcommittee met at 11 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 429, House Office Building, Hon. Augustine B. Kelley (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Kelley (presiding), Lucas, Bailey, Perkins, McConnell, and Vail.

Present also: David N. Henderson, assistant general counsel to the Committee on Education and Labor; R. L. Cardon, Office of the Legislative Counsel of the House of Representatives.

(COMMITTEE NOTE.-A copy of committee print No. 1 on H. R. 7408, showing the bill as reported by this subcommittee, incorporating all amendments agreed to by the subcommittee, is made a part of this volume on page 1 of the hearings before the full committee.)

Mr. KELLEY. The subcommittee will be in order.

We have a number of gentlemen with us today, and I think the subcommittee is familiar with their names and positions.

STATEMENTS OF DONALD G. WELSH, CHIEF COUNSEL, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF MINES; M. J. ANKENY, CHIEF, COAL MINE INSPECTION BRANCH, UNITED STATES BUREAU OF MINES; AND HAROLD J. SLOMAN, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED STATES BUREAU OF MINES

STATEMENTS OF CHARLES FERGUSON, ACTING SAFETY DIRECTOR OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA; ROBERT E. HOWE, INTERNATIONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA

STATEMENTS OF EDWARD D. SCHORR, AN ATTORNEY REPRESENTING COAL OPERATORS; AND JAMES HYSLOP, PRESIDENT OF THE HANNA COAL CO.

Mr. LUCAS. Gentlemen, I think I may be blamed for the hearing today. It is my fault that all you are called here today for the purpose of answering some questions. I do not want to apologize for it, because I think the fact that we have gotten together here and clarified some of the provisions of this bill indicates there were some faults in it which should have been corrected.

1

I have some general questions and some questions about the underlying philosophy of this proposal, and then some technical questions regarding the language in the suggested measure which I should like to discuss with all of you. I do not raise them for the purpose of controversy, because I am candid enough to tell you that I shall vote against the bill, notwithstanding the corrections which may be made. I simply do not believe that the Federal Government should enter this field.

I want to raise first, gentlemen, a matter which will be debated thoroughly, I am sure, on the floor of the Congress in connection with this measure if we do not attempt to correct it here in the committee, and that is the coverage of the act relating to the size of the mines. I will do it by asking questions.

Mr. Schorr, do you intend that every mine, including the family mine and the small mine and the mine employing less than 25 or less than 50 or less than 100 be covered by this act?

Mr. SCHORR. I would say that I have no particular intention about it, and I think, however, that as the bill is drafted it would cover every mine regardless of size, regardless of production, that is tonnage, and regardless of the number of men employed, provided that mine is engaged in interstate commerce, or that its business affects interstate commerce.

Mr. LUCAS. Can you illustrate to this committee a mine that would not be engaged in interstate commerce?

Mr. SCHORR. I cannot, because of the more recent decisions of the Supreme Court, I am inclined to think it would hold that every mine is engaged in interstate commerce.

Mr. LUCAS. Would you have objection, Mr. Schorr, to exempting the coverage of this bill to mines employing less than a certain number of men, or producing less than a certain number of tons annually?

Mr. SCHORR. If you ask me personally, I would say that I would see no sound objection to exempting small mines, just that statement, and then the next question is, What is a small mine, or what line will you draw.

Mr. LUCAS. We are going to have to thresh that out here with these experts.

Mr. SCHORR. I do not want it understood that my statement means I might agree or might not agree to what the committee might determine where the line would be.

Mr. LUCAS. We are just discussing it, and we are not bound by any statement we make in the discussion, I hope. Let us go to the mine workers. Mr. Ferguson, how do you feel about that?

Mr. FERGUSON. Very strongly, Congressman, on the basis that a man is just as dead in a small mine as he is in a large one, and on the basis that the actual statistics show that our smaller mines are the most dangerous mines in the country, and on the basis that so many State law exempt mines of certain sizes and in some of our States, particularly in our eastern State of Kentucky, we have had whole families wiped out because there was no control over these. A man and his wife and his daughter. And I can remember the name of the operation. They were all killed one day because there was no restriction on them. Anybody in the world could go in there and start a hole in the hill, knowing nothing about coal mining, and they go in there without

setting any timbers whatever and they went under a large piece of unsupported sandstone and suddently, without warning, it fell and all three of them were dead.

A boy 10 years old was killed in the State of Kentucky last year in a coal mine, because of the fact there were no restrictions as it was a small operation, and the State inspection department did not get to it in time. Certainly I do not believe that any mine that is in business should be exempted from coverage from this act.

Mr. Lucas. Mr. Welsh, representing the Bureau, will you tell us, Mr. Welsh, first your opinion, and then the complexities which might arise if this bill became a law?

Mr. WELSH. Well, perhaps the best way to do is look at it from a practical angle. I do not believe that we have been able to inspect every coal mine in the United States under our existing law, partly because of the lack of funds, and it is hard to find some of those gopher holes, or holes in the hill, as Mr. Ferguson referred to them. There are places that a family mine is on somebody's farm where they just dig coal for their own use. That is true. And I also recognize the position Mr. Schoor took, that it is perfectly possible under some of the recent court decisions to hold that any mine, even if it only produces enough coal for the people on whose farm it is located, is affecting interstate commerce. I am not committing the Department, but I certainly am not prepared to say now that we would go in and say that we are going to inspect those mines willy-nilly. If we had enough force, I think we would, as a service to the people. I think we should, and I am inclined to agree with Mr. Ferguson that a man is just as dead, no matter how big the mine was. He is just as dead in a small mine as he is in a big one. I think we owe them a service, but practically, I do not believe with the type of force we have, and the amount of money that the act proposes we could ever get around to such mines once a year.

Mr. ANKENY. Not with our present force we could not.

Mr. WELSH. That is right.

Mr. LUCAS. How serious objection would you raise, Mr. Welsh, if we were to decide here in the committee, to exempt mines producing no more than a certain number of tons annually, or employing no more than a certain number of men?

Mr. WELSH. As a practical matter, I think a tonnage limitation is unworkable, because you could have, I could readily see a man having 50 men working, and working 1 month a year, producing a substantial tonnage during that period, and not much on an annual basis, but the hazards to those 50 men are just as great as if that mine operated 12 months a year.

Now, on the number, perhaps that would be a more reasonable approach, the number of men engaged in the work.

Mr. Lucas. Mr. Welsh, I am sure that it would be almost impossible for you or anyone in the Bureau to estimate how many men it would take to inspect all of the mines in the United States, if this bill as presently drafted were enacted, but I would like for you to give the committee your views as to the additional expense required to enforce this act.

Mr. WELSH. Of course, that depends partly on how we in the Department would construe substantially affecting interstate commerce.

21029-52-16

I do not believe we would be compelled to construe it as to include the mine as we said before operated entirely by a farmer so we would not be under any compulsion then to examine such a mine once a year. Mr. LUCAS. Nor would you be compelled not to.

Mr. WELSH. That is right, but that depends upon the interpretation of the phrase "substantially affects interstate commerce," and now if you were to take it in its furthest implications as every coal mine in the United States, well, from testimony that has been given before this committee, I do not believe that we could recruit such a force to do it.

Mr. FERGUSON. Might I break in just a moment, to say I disagree entirely with the gentleman's opinion on the right as far as being able to recruit the necessary force. That is a matter of administration, and the Bureau, I believe, has made statements that by doubling their force if necessary they could do so, and it is a matter of manpower, and the manpower is available to do the job, and you cannot say it cannot be done.

Mr. WELSH. I am not disagreeing with you either; I am saying if you extend this to include all or every place where coal is dug in the United States; that was my premise.

Mr. FERGUSON. That is true.

Mr. WELSH. I think the record will bear me out; I do not think the testimony was intended to go that far in any estimate made as to the expense or the number of people involved, and I have not refreshed my recollection as to the record on that, but that is my present recollection, and I think it would be borne out by the record, that any of the statements made by Director Forbes or anyone else with respect. to the expense of enforcing this act, and the number of inspectors that we required were based on the ultimate of having to go every place in the United States where coal was dug, regardless of tonnage, or the number of people engaged; is that not correct?

Mr. ANKENY. That is correct.

Mr. LUCAS. Mr. Welsh, and gentlemen, you all heard expressed in the general hearing the fear that by adoption of such a bill, we might emasculate or cause the reduction of the enforcement of State laws by the State authorities. With that in mind, do you not think in order to cause the State governments to continue the enforcement of their State codes, we should leave a field exclusively within the jurisdiction of the States, and that field might be the regulation of small mines.

Mr. ANKENY. May I answer that, sir? I think we have left a very wide field for the State officials.

Mr. LUCAS. Since this applies only to disasters, that is right. But go ahead with your thought.

Mr. ANKENY. One more thought, then, and that is that a number of the States, and I cannot tell you just which States they are, do not have jurisdiction over so-called small mines in their law. In their law they are not permitted or they are not required to inspect small mines and do not do it.

Mr. LUCAS. Would our exempting them be some persuasion upon the States to extend their jurisdiction over the smaller mines? I agree with Mr. Ferguson that a dead man working in a small mine is just as dead as one working in a large one.