OCR Text |
Show Btiltrs Should Bt iMpecttd. The lower house of the tJtah Legislature" showed itself to be anything but progressive when it defeated de-feated the. Cromar bill proTlding fpr the inspection, of boilers. The- reasons urged against it were absurd, ab-surd, to say the least The action of the House, indicated in-dicated s. disposition on the part of some of its members mem-bers to subserve special interests regardless of the interests of the public. . Nearly eYery State that has manufactures or is endeavoring to attract manqfacturing establish-ftrents-Jias a law providing , for the . inspection of boilers. - The expense is small and in some States the fees collecte'd make the inspection a source of profit ; ; i. !No measure that adds to the safety of human life can be regarded as an unnecessary expense. If one life is lost through the failure to the State to see toit that boilers are safe, the responsibility will rest upon the members of the House who voted down the measure. Heads of concerns in which boilers are used cannot can-not see to it personally that the boilers are in fit condition. con-dition. Engineers are sometimes incompetent and often careless. At any rate, accidents happen frequently fre-quently and they are usually attended by loss of life' and damage, to property. It is the duty of the State to' guard against such accidents. Experience has shown that individuals cannot be trusted to do it. The onljr reasons advanced against the bill were that it would create additional expense and that there was no demand for such a "law on the part of the constituents of one member. They are pretty poor reasons why lives should be. placed in jeopardy. |