ments thereto, to require certain duties to be done and performed by the owner, operator or manager of a coal mine.

The object and purpose of the statute are the protection of miners working in coal mines. Whilst the act is an effort on the part of the General Assembly to strictly comply with section 29 of article 4 of the constitution, by providing for the ventilation of mines, the construction of escapement shafts, and such other appliances as shall secure safety in all coal mines, the General Assembly has seen proper to include a provision for the preparation of maps and the filing of the same with the chief mine inspector of the district, and that on neglect or default of the owner to make such map the inspector may make the same at his expense, and this is one of the requirements of the statute which has been held constitutional by this court. . .

To a much greater extent the provisions of section 11, which prescribe the duties of the inspectors, and require his reports and statements to be posted in a conspicuous place, showing the condition of the mine, and what, in his judgment, is necessary for the protection of the lives and health of persons employed in such mine, etc., are an exercise of the police power of the State. The examination of the condition of the mine would also necessarily require the inspector to examine and report as to whether the manner of the construction of escapement shafts, air shafts and the ventilation of the mine is in conformity with the requirements of the statute. Inspections are necessary in determining health and quarantine laws, and also with reference to the examination of articles to be used as food, and it never has been held that a provision looking to the inspection of certain articles that may be offered for sale for the purposes of human food, or a law providing for inspection with reference to health, is an improper exercise of the police power. Nor could it be held that the provision of the statute with reference to the appointment of inspectors for coal mines, who are to discharge the duties imposed upon them by section 11, is not a proper exercise of the police power of the State. The very purpose and object of the statute are in regard to the health and safety of miners, and requiring that mine owners should permit an inspection of their mines for this purpose is but an exercise of such police power.

The mining of coal is recognized as a dangerous and hazardous business, and is a productive industry of the greatest importance. For many years in this State many thousands of men have been engaged

in that character of work, and a proper safeguard of their lives and health is a matter of so great interest and necessity that no subject can be mentioned where there is a more positive necessity for the exercise of the police law than in seeking to subserve their safety. With a recognition of the fact that under the police power the legislature has the right to provide for the inspection of mines, it may also provide for the payment of fees for such inspection, and may place the burden of the payment of such fees on the business that requires the employment of men in such dangerous and hazardous work, to an equal extent as it may place the burden on commerce in the shipment of grain, and appeals much more strongly for a proper enforcement of this character of law by proper inspection than the mere protection of trade. If an inspection is to be had, it is attended with expense. The expense thus incurred is imposed because of the peculiar dangers of the surrounding situation, and subserves not only the interest of the miners, but alike protects the mine owner, and hence the burden of the payment of the fee can be properly imposed upon the mine owner without violating any provision of the constitution.

Appellant contends that legislation, under the provisions of section 29 of article 4, can only be had with reference to ventilation and escapement shafts. Such contention cannot be sustained, because that section requires legislation for a particular purpose having in view the safety of miners, and submits to the legislature the policy to be pursued for the accomplishment of that end, and which cannot lightly be interfered with by a court. Appellant, from the position taken, seems to disregard the fact that the legislature may legislate, under the police power which it possesses, outside of the mere mandates of that provision of the constitution. The contention is entirely too

narrow. . .

We hold that it was within the power of the legislature to provide for the inspection of mines by inspectors so appointed, and to provide for fees to be paid by the mine owner to be used towards the payment of the expenses of such inspection. Such fee is in no sense a tax, but a mere compensation for services rendered, and the act is therefore not unconstitutional.

It was not error to refuse to hold the propositions asked by the appellant, and the judgment of the circuit court of Sangamon county is affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

QUESTIONS

1. In the case quoted, was there any doubt as to the power of the legislature to pass laws protecting workers in mines?

2. What limits to the power of the legislature in the regulation of mining are suggested?

3. Was the legislature of Illinois dependent upon the section of the constitution of the state quoted in the case for its power to act?

4. The regulation of working conditions in mines may be by definite legislative enactment or it may be effected by administrative orders of a Commission authorized by the state legislature. What are the relative advantages of each method?

5. It is argued that the regulation of working conditions in mines places such a financial burden on the stockholders of a mining company that their investment becomes almost valueless. Is this a deprivation of property without due process?

6. "The passage of laws containing rules applying to mines and not to other business places is an arbitrary discrimination and hence illegal." Comment on this statement.

7. What difficulties does a state legislature have to solve when it attempts to regulate conditions in mines and tunnels? What aids to the solution of these difficulties can be suggested?

8. Report on the extent of the regulation of mines and tunnels in your state. How has such regulation fared in the courts?

9. Is there any relation between the violation of laws regulating working conditions in mines and tunnels and an employer's liability for damages due an employee for injuries sustained?

3. TRANSPORTATION

(a) By Water

A

FEDERAL STATUTES FOR PROTECTION OF SEAMEN15

R. S. Sec. 4556. If the first and second officers under the master or a majority of the crew of any vessel bound on any voyage shall, before the vessel shall have left the harbor, discover that the vessel is too leaky or is otherwise unfit in her crew, body, tackle, apparel, furniture, provisions, or stores to proceed on the intended voyage, and shall require such unfitness to be inquired into, the master shall, upon the request of the first and second officers under the master or such majority of the crew, forthwith apply to the judge of the district court of

159 Fed. Stat. An. (2d. Ed.) 185-197. The sections entitled R. S. are from the Revised Statutes of the United States.

that judicial district, if he shall there reside, or if not, to some justice of the peace of the city, town, or place for the appointment of surveyors, as in section forty-five hundred and fifty-seven provided, taking with him two or more of the crew, who shall have made such request; and any master refusing or neglecting to comply with these provisions shall be liable to a penalty of five hundred dollars.

R. S. Sec. 4557. The judge, or justice, in a domestic port, shall, upon such application of the master or commander, issue his precept, directed to three persons in the neighborhood, the most experienced and skillful in maritime affairs that can be procured; and whenever such complaint is about the provisions one of such surveyors shall be a physician or a surgeon of the Marine Hospital Service, if such service is established at the place where the complaint is made. It shall be the duty of such surveyors to repair on board such vessel and to examine the same in respect to the defects and insufficiencies complained of, and make reports to the judge, or justice, as the case may be, in writing, under their hands or the hands of two of them, whether in any or in what respect the vessel is unfit to proceed on the intended voyage, and what addition of men, provisions, or stores, or what repairs or alterations in the body, tackle, or apparel will be necessary; and upon such report the judge or justice shall adjudge and shall indorse on his report his judgment whether the vessel is fit to proceed on the intended. voyage, and, if not, whether such repairs can be made or deficiencies supplied where the vessel then lies, or whether it is necessary for her to proceed to the nearest or most convenient place where such supplies can be made or deficiencies supplied; and the master and the crew shall, in all things, conform to the judgment. The master or commander shall, in the first instance, pay all the cost of such review, report, or judgment, to be taxed and allowed on a fair copy thereof, certified by the judge or justice. But if the complaint of the crew shall appear upon the report and judgment to have been without foundation, the master or commander, or the owner or consignee of such vessel, shall deduct the amount thereof, and of reasonable damages for the detention to be ascertained by the judge or justice, out of the wages of the complaining seamen.

R. S. Sec. 4558. If, after judgment that such vessel is fit to proceed on her intended voyage, or after procuring such men, provisions, stores, repairs, or alterations as may be directed, the seamen, or either of them, shall refuse to proceed on the voyage, he shall forfeit any wages that may be due him.

[R. S. Sections 4559 and 4560 contain provisions similar to those of the preceding sections applicable to American vessels in foreign ports.]

R. S. Sec. 4561. The inspectors in their report shall also state whether in their opinion the vessel was sent to sea unsuitably provided in any important or essential particular, by neglect or design, or through mistake or accident; and in case it was by neglect or design, and the consular officer approves of such finding, he shall discharge such of the crew as shall request it, and shall require the payment by the master of one month's wages for each seaman over and above the wages then due, or sufficient money for the return of such crew as desire to be discharged to the nearest and most convenient port of the United States, or by furnishing the seamen who so desire to be discharged with employment on a ship agreed to by them. But if in the opinion of the inspectors the defects or deficiencies found to exist have been the result of mistake or accident, and could not, in the exercise of ordinary care, have been known and provided against before the sailing of the vessel, and the master shall in a reasonable time remove or remedy the causes of complaint, then the crew shall remain and discharge their duty. If any person knowingly sends or attempts to send or is party to the sending or attempting to send an American ship to sea, in the foreign or coastwise trade, in such an unseaworthy state that the life of any person is likely to be thereby endangered, he shall, in respect of each offense, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars or by imprisonment not to exceed five years, or both, at the discretion of the court; unless he proves that either he used all reasonable means to insure her being sent to sea in a seaworthy state, or that her going to sea in an unseaworthy state was, under the circumstances, reasonable and justifiable, and for the purpose of giving that proof he may give evidence in the same manner as any other witness.

R. S. Sec. 4564. Should any master or owner of any merchant vessel of the United States neglect to provide a sufficient quantity of stores to last for a voyage of ordinary duration to the port of destination, and in consequence of such neglect the crew are compelled to accept a reduced scale, such master or owner shall be liable to a penalty as provided in section forty-five hundred and sixty-eight of the Revised Statutes.

R. S. Sec. 4565. Any three or more of the crew of any merchantvessel of the United States bound from a port in the United States to