THE ACCIDENT AT THE BRUNNER MINE.

Grey River Argus, Volume XXIII, Issue 3612, 23 March 1880, Page 2

THE ACCIDENT AT THE BRUNNER MINE.

[to the editor.] Sir, — Referring to your leading article of yesterday morning's paper, touching the death of John Broadfoot, and the Coroner's inquest on the accident and the causeß thereof.

Having heard all the evidence at the inquest except latter portion of the Inspector's, Mr Binns', I was surprised at reading in the article referred to th« severe censure therein passed on Mr Elliott, the mine manager, and to some extent on myself. I have since carefully read over the evidence of the several witnesses at the Coroner's inqueat, as taken down by the Coroner, and also as published in your, paper of yesterday morning, and it appears to me the evidence, as a whole, points to a different conclusion to that arrived at by you. You say the accident would not have occurred if an ordinary amount of care had been exercised. Mr Binns, the Inspector, in his sworn testimony says, " After hearing the evidence he thought that ordinary care had been exercised." You say Mr Binns stated he had cautioned Mr Kennedy, he had better mind or there would be another Kaitangata, and ordered that special rules 29 and 30 should be put in force, that Mr Binns' letter remained unanswered, and that great carelessness prevailed. Now, Mr Binns' statement to me in Wellington, as well a3 his letter to Mr Elliott, had reference to " the wastes" — the old workings in the mine, — and I invite any person to show in what manner neglect of these instructions contributed to the explosion, or the cause of Broadfoot's death in any manner whatever. The rule 3 mentioned provide for examining they mine every shift with Davy ' lamps prior to the miners entering thwir places ; and frequently, or at least weekly, of the wastes or old workings to ascertain if there was any danger from fire damp, &c, &c., and making report I in book. Mr Elliott says he examined the mine with a naked light, and the foreman, J. Morris, says he did examine the working places daily, but sometimes found miners in their places before him. Now, the tone of your article would lead the public to believe the explosion, and consequently Broadfoot's death, was due to the unobservance of these rules. This 13 quite a mistake. The manager, or his deputy, might have gone round every working place in the mine that morning, also the wastes or old workings, and probably he did, and would not have found a trace of fire damp. Mr Binns, in his evidence, proves this. He saya, in reply to a juror, " Every time I examined the Brunner mine I found the -air perfect ;" and he said previously, " he had examined the mine and the scene of the accident since his arrival." It is a well-known fact that there has been no trace of fire-damp in the Brunner mine except in the stone drift fur the past eight years at least, and consequently any amount of inspection with Davy lamps would not discover any, and therefore the observance of the rules referred to would not have suggested any extra caution at the fan. You say it is no excuse for Mr Kennedy to say he held a naked light ten days previously in a similar position to deceased, for observing the action of the fan, &c. I used that statement -for the purpose of showing that the air of the fan appeared to be quite good and safe after it was in motion for a fp-w hours, but I may not have held my light as high as the deceased. And finally you say, " We find, to put the mildest expression on it, great carelessness prevailed, and if the inquiry had been into the cauae of the accident instead of into the death of John Broadfoot, a different verdict would in all probability have been returned." The only carelessness, if it can bti called by that name, permitted at the Brunner mine, has been overlooking the miners going to their places occasionally prior to the manager visiting it, and seeing that all the miners have copies of the rules it is clearly their fault, but the manager knowing there was no danger did not enforce compliance strictly in the past. As to a different verdict being arrived at if the causes of the accident had been gone into, I would ask for what purpose was all the evidence taken (as published in your paper report) if not to ascertain the cause of the accident. I think your readers will agree with me that the enquiry has been exhaustive, and if further enquiry is made I have no fear of any different verdict. Sir, next to the unfortunate widow and her family, there is none can deplore this unfortunate accident more than I do, and therefore look with pleasure upon any remonstrance from the public press to managers and miners generally, having for its object the enforcement of precautionary measures for the safety of the miners and the mines ; but Ido not think any good purpose can be effected by attributing to the management, in this instance great carelessness, when the contrary is borne out by the evidence given before the Coroner. I am, &c, M. Kennedy.