mendations, for instance, for a mine in Pennsylvania would in a majority of cases be wholly impracticable for a mine in Kentucky. I do not think these inspectors are capable of disagnosing the actual conditions of mines in Kentucky; therefore, they frequently take snap judgment and make recommendations that are practically impossible to comply with. This confuses the mind of both the management and the worker. With respect to local conditions with which both management and workers are thoroughly familiar and which management has successfully handled for years, I have heard Federal inspectors argue with mine officials in an effort to get them to change their mining methods simply in order to comply with the code. In some instances management has yielded to these recommendations with resulting accidents and sometimes loss of life. Generally speaking, when a Federal inspector completes an inspection of a mine, he talks to the operator and the operator asks him how he found things. The inspector in response says, "Well, not so bad." Then he suggests four or five recommendations which he enumerates. The operator corrects these conditions, and then within a 2-week period a final report is sent to the operator and one posted at the mines with some 10 to 12 recommendations. If the Federal inspector had reported these recommendations originally, they would have been corrected, as were the four or five, and with little added cost, and would not have a condition to exist for a 2-week period. Personally, I have accompanied Federal inspectors, during an inspection of a mine and working places, and they would see some mine worker in violation of the State mining law, the company rules and the Federal safety code; yet they would say nothing to the violator or the company representative about this. Then some 2 weeks later, the final inspection report would state that some men were noticed jumping on or off moving trips, or some men were noticed without proper and adequate timbering in their places. Whereas the State inspector, who finds a violator of any of the safety rules of the company or the State mining law or even the Federal code, stops the man, calls his attention to the danger, and makes him correct the dangerous condition or practice at the time, thereby eliminating the accident or conditions. The Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals has established mine rescue stations, fully equipped with latest equipment, in each of the mining centers. The department is continually training men in recovery work, mine fires, and explosions. First aid classes and contests are held yearly in districts and finally a State meet is held. I think the records of the Bureau of Mines will show that in the last 40 years. fatalities in coal mines have been reduced about two-thirds. So far as man-hours worked is concerned, coal mining is more than twice as safe as it used to be. As stated above, I am opposed to the Federal Government encroaching upon the functions of State mining departments. The Federal Bureau of Mines has done a great work in training and educating men to be more safety minded. Instead of more laws the counter measure should be adopted and that is education. In this, the Bureau can help tremendously. Instead of police powers, we should have more education by the Bureau and more application by the operators and coal miners. In conclusion I would like to say that I have been studying accidents and their prevention for many years; and I find that about 90 percent of accidents are caused by failure to comply with the law, the code and safety rules and regulations. In my opinion, the Bureau of Mines should be denied police powers and should continue to function as an educational institution and leave the enforcement of present laws to the various State mining departments. Mr. KELLEY. Mr. Mosgrove. TESTIMONY OF J. H. MOSGROVE, SAFETY DIRECTOR, BIG SANDYELKHORN COAL OPERATORS' ASSOCIATION Mr. MOSGROVE. The association that I work for represents 36 coalmining companies producing approximately 10.000,000 tons of bituminous coal annually. At the outset I should like to state that the owners and operators of the coal mines from my field are as much interested in the development of safety in the coal mines as anybody, and I feel safe in saying that we have done more in the last 10 years in promoting safety than any other interested agency in eastern Kentucky. We feel that it is good business and good sense, and, for your information, all of our companies are banded together in an active, going, safety organization known as the Big Sandy-Elkhorn Coal Mining Institute, of which I am the director of safety. This organization was instituted and is devoted entirely to safety and educational work. We maintain at headquarters a modern mine-rescue station and instruct miners, at no cost to them, in the safe and practical methods of mining coal. I might mention that neither of these things is required by law. It is my understanding that the subject matter before this hearing which was to be H. R. 3023 has now broadened into the general subject of the Federal police power for mine safety, and my remarks will be directed to the broad, general field rather than to the one proposed. I do not feel that it is necessary to pass this bill to improve mine safety, because, by the Bureau's own admission, the accident rate in the coal industry is being reduced appreciably. A Bureau of Mines release dated August 27, 1948, stated that approximately one-third of the violations of the Federal Mine Safety Code by the Federal coal-mine inspectors in the year ending June 30, 1948, were corrected completely and progress was made in eliminating about 15 percent of the devia tions. It should be kept in mind that at the time this report was made the enforcing agencies were the State mine departments and the Federal inspection department was only making recommendations. It is not my intention to discredit the Bureau of Mines, because it has rendered service to the mining industry in research and educational programs, such as accident prevention, first aid, and mine-rescue courses, that have proved invaluable. I only wish that these functions of the Bureau could be expanded, because that is where the industry needs help. And I would like to say that we would like in eastern Kentucky to have more of them. I think that I am correct in saying that we have one man working out of the Norton Station who teaches minerescue and first-aid courses and who covers eastern Kentucky and southwestern West Virginia. That represents hundreds of coal mines and thousands of miners. There is the place where the Bureau of Mines could really help us. Mr. BAILEY. The gentleman might be interested to know that I have an authorization for a Federal Bureau of Mines building in West Virginia on which we hope to get action and construction started in the not too far distant future. Mr. MOSGROVE. That will be very good. Mr. BAILEY. We hope to concentrate all that inspection work in West Virginia, southern West Virginia, and eastern Kentucky. Mr. MOSGROVE. I believe that I speak for the entire industry when I say that we wish to maintain healthy relations and that we do need the assistance of the Bureau of Mines. The Bureau of Mines has an excellent over-all picture of mining in different States from the standpoint of conditions that are inherent to all mines and are in a position to suggest and recommend improvements that would apply to all, whether they be in Alabama, Utah, or West Virginia. Although there are practices that, if enforced in Utah, would prove helpful, the enforcement of the same practice in Kentucky would create a hazard. For instance, the use of safety collars over loading machines. If the coal is so low so as not to permit proper clearance between the safety collars and the top of the loading, then the coal is apt to drag out the collar, possibly injuring or killing someone, and there have been instances where this has happened. On the other hand, if there is ample clearance, the use of collars is a good safety practice. I mention that so the Chair will realize that the term "imminent danger" is subject to interpretation to degree by whatever inspector is concerned. What might be an "imminent danger" in one field might almost come under the heading of a good safety practice in another field such as the instance I have referred to above; and I want to urge that you give serious consideration to not placing mandatory power where such discretion is involved. If I understand correctly, under Federal policing of mines, the operator would have no recourse if he and the inspector differed on what the inspector would call an "imminent danger" and if the inspector decided to impose the penalties provided, the mine manager would have no right to appeal. This would place dictatorial powers in the hands of the Federal inspector who could use them at his discretion even though he may not be as competent to judge as the mine manager. All this is contrary to our system of government, where even a "bum" has the right to a fair trial. This code is vague and indefinite causing many misunderstandings and is certainly not written in such a way as to cover the whole mining industry of the United States. The converse of this is that our State law is detailed and specific and our State inspectors have, and are using, the authority to enforce its provisions and their actions do not depend on one man's interpretation of what is "imminent danger" as may or may not spell out at a standardless cost. It is certainly no cure-all. On the other hand, the Kentucky coal mines-the evidence of the fact that the law is detailed and complete. It is being amended to keep pace with changing conditions and changing problems. A few years ago the Kentucky Department of Mines had only 6 or 7 inspectors; today there are about 30. The code, with its inelastic rules cannot be expected to do everything because of the varying conditions from State to State. Expecting it to fill the need would be the same as expecting a physician to administer the same treatment to persons suffering different illnesses. Good, clear thinking would eliminate the idea of the Federal Mine Inspection Code and the State mining laws, being both enforced at a mine at the same time. The men at the mines now are confused between the two. I am in a position to know this because of the mining classes I instruct. We feel that it would only create confusion if both agencies tried to enforce their regulations at the same time, with a different yardstick to go by. We of eastern Kentucky have several mining institutes devoted to safety programs. Each year we hold mine-rescue and first-aid contests-I might mention that that is not required by law-both regional and State-wide and we feel that these are some of the things that are helping us to improve our safety record. We believe that when these standards are enforced in the field, our accidents will drop. I might also mention that the Bureau of Mines and the Kentucky Department of Mines and Minerals both go along with us hand-in hand in promoting these safety programs. Whether or not this would be changed if H. R. 3023 passes, would remain to be seen. Whether or not they would go along together or whether or not they would be at loggerheads, I do not know. There has been some thinking that coal mining is interstate business and that Federal inspectors could be likened to inspectors of meatpacking houses. I feel that coal mining is strictly a State's own affair and that Federal policing of mines is an infringement on State's rights. Meat inspectors inspect meat, which is a product. The same inspection in connection with coal mining would be to inspect the coal which is the product. I would readily say that if quality of coal which is shipped interstate affected the health of the public, then impose Federal legislation. It is our studied opinion that the introduction of mandatory power in safety work, which by its very nature should be cooperation and education, is not a step in the right direction. Our safety programs have all been stepped up as our results show. We ask that the status of that work remain unchanged so that the best results can flow from the endeavors of us all. We further believe that the method to obtain safety lies more in education than in legislation. In connection with the term "imminent danger" that is included in the bill, gentlemen, I would like to read an excerpt or two from the investigation of a coal-mine explosion at the Centralia mine. These are the words of Mr. Lewis before the committee. This is an excerpt: The safety precaution here is to have sufficient area to take care of all requirements and all eventualities. Though an inspector goes there as he did in Centralia, and while he may find gas, yes, but not to a degree that there is imminent danger, he may find dust, yes, but not to a degree that there is imminent danger, he is incapable of defining the word "imminent." It is impossible. His judgment is worthless, and when Mr. Krug comes down here and says to the committee that "Although my inspectors made 1,700 investigations and found 46,000 violations of the code, I had no reason to assume that danger was imminent," when it is an elementary principle that danger is always imminent in a coal mine * Another excerpt from page 126 from Mr. Lewis: I agree with you, Senator, that this is true. But about the 1st of January, there was no coal dust in the mine and it was not regarded as so-called imminent hazard. I am going to hate that word for the rest of my life. Those are the words of John L. Lewis, stating that the so-called imminent hazard would be a word that he would hate for the rest of his life. Gentlemen, I wish to thank you very kindly for permitting the time to appear before you. Mr. KELLEY. Does that complete your statement, Mr. Mosgrove? Mr. MOSGROVE. That completes my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. KELLEY. Do you have any questions, Mr. Bailey? Mr. BAILEY. Mr. Mosgrove, it was testified yesterday by Mr. Forbes of the Bureau of Mines that in mines employing 500 or more men, there was a record of compliance with the findings of the Federal inspectors of about 47 percent. In mines from 300 to 500, there was 41 percent compliance; in mines employing from 100 to 300, it was 37 percent; in mines employing from 25 to 100, it was 31 percent. For mines employing 1 to 25 miners, and for the smaller mines, only 25 percent complied. Of this group that you represent, how many mines do you have in the upper category employing 500 or more? Mr. MOSGROVE. That would be very hard for me to say, but I would say roughly 10 to 15 percent. Mr. BAILEY. Have you any explanation to give the committee as to why they have not a greater percent of compliance with the Federal recommendations, as safety director for this group? Mr. MOSGROVE. I do not know, unless it would be because most of the larger companies do employ safety directors, and at the smaller mines, the mine foremen, and so forth, act in charge of safety, also. Mr. BAILEY. Now, on a break-down of inspections reported by Mr. Forbes, there were for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1948, 2,825 violation reported in Kentucky. The largest for any one category was ventilation. We have 631 complaints by the Federal Bureau of Mines in their inspections in Kentucky for that year on ventilation, and 614 violations on timbering. Those seem to be the two greatest offenders, those two categories. What is being done about it down there by your operators' association? Why not have a greater compliance with their findings on the matter of timbering and on the matter of better ventilation than, say, 47 percent in the larger mines and 25 percent in the smaller mines? That is the kind of information this committee would like to have. What is being done about it? Mr. MOSGROVE. I will say that the larger operations are getting more education among the men at the mines, and the smaller ones, I think, are just coming to it. Now, it is my job, gentlemen, to go out in the field and teach mining classes. I teach mine gases, ventilation, mine fires and explosions, and all the things connected with mining That is part of my job as safety director for the association. And I believe that that is the reason that our accidents are being reduced. It is educational work. Now, you state that 614 Mr. BAILEY. Six hundred fourteen and six hundred thirty-one of those violations were ventilation. Mr. MOSGROVE. To me, Congressman, that sounds awfully low for timbering violations. Mr. BAILEY. That is according to his report. I have the report right here in front of me. Mr. MOSGROVE. I have no reason to question it, although it just does not seem reasonable to me. You will find that a greater percentage of men are killed by falls of roof and coal at the working face. Mr. BAILEY. That seems to me probably in keeping. You have about twice, maybe, or three times as much coal mining as they had in West Virginia. They had about 306 timbering violations reported in West Virginia, as compared to 631 in Kentucky. That is about the right ratio. Now, here, Mr. Mosgrove, is the worst part of it, on the report on your compliance. Between June 1, 1946, and March 21, 1947, they report that you have only 20 instances in the entire State of Kentucky where they complied with the findings of the Federal Bureau of Mines. Now, along about that time, that special legislation went in which lasted for 1 year. It was at the time when the mines were in the hands of the Government, when the Government, if it wanted to, could |