THE HUTT FIRE

Evening Post, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 103, 2 May 1914, Page 9

THE HUTT FIRE

10 THB EDITOR. Sir,— ln a contemporary is a letter signed by Mr., Leslie H. Reynolds. At the enquiry two scientists gave it as their opinion that the explosion was caused by gelignite ; another scientist stated that it was due to acetylene gas. The Coroner found it was due to gelignite. Ndw, Mr. Beynolds, states that it was due to acetylene gas. It is rather unfortunate that Mr. Reynolds was not present ab the enquiry. Mr. Reynolds I personally' know has had considerable^ experience with the use of gelignite, while acting as engineer for the contractors for the construction of the Otira^ Tunnel. I* was present* on one occasion, when he was testing some new fnse which was supposed to be the best ever manufactured. The result of the test proved it to be about as bad as bad could be. ' - ■ I-often watched the man making up the fuses for the gelignite to be used at the tunnel head. 1 ' have seen a number of explosions of gelignite— and the mode of setting the fuse alight — which was to cut a nick in the fuse, put a small bit of gelignite into the cut, then set it on fire with a match, the gelignite, as Mr. Reynolds says, simpljr burns or Bpits. Now, if the gelignite would explode when a flame was applied to it, as some of the witnesses stated,, how is it that the miners who used such large quantities in the tunnel operations, lighted their fuses in the way I have stated. From the opinions 'given above as to the cause of the explosion, would it not be as well to endeavour to decide the question by having a series of experiments, conducted by Professor Easterfield for acetylene, and Dr. Maclaurin for gelignite, with a jury, say, of the Coroner, and four others experienced in the use of gelignite and acetylene gas, and carried out in such a situation as would allow no possible danger to arise. This should, one Would suppose, set the matter at 'rest.— l am, etc. H.H.T. 29th April. t P. S.— Since, writing the above I have just again read Mr. Reynolds's letter, and this portion of it : "No one who handles gelignite or high shock explo- j sives would be foolish enough to put i detonators into a case with such explosives, or near them." The above extract, in my humble opinion, puts the matter of gelignite as being the culprit. The whole evidence a"s to quantity of gelignite and detonators was most vague, There is evidence that the detonators were kept either in the same 1 box as the gelignite or near to it. If the quantity of detonators was greater • ar V W ? s Btatecl » an d they were either in the box or near to, then it certainly would seem that the gelignite was guilty. • • H.H.T.