THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1879.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XVI, Issue 5633, 5 December 1879, Page 4

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. FRIDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1879.

It is impossible, we think, to arrive at any other conclusion from the evidence given yesterday at the inquest on the body of James Boyle, killed by the late accident at the excavation at Fort Britomart, than that the poor fellow was the victim of culpable conduct on the part of the contractor for carrying out the work; and we must express the opinion that the verdict of the jury was far from adequate. The facts and the evidence were quite clear, that the man s destruction had been caused by the dangerous manner in which the work had°been carried out, and yet their verdict contains not one word of condemnation of the contractor. It is evident that the work was carried on at hourly risk to the men, and their lives perilled, because the removal of the earth was effected in a manner most likely to render the contract profitable, What are the facts 1 The height of the cliff is given variously at fifty, and from seventy to eighty feet and it is immaterial what it° really is, because the lesser height was quite sufficient to render the work dangerous. On a basis of rock is a layer of pipe-clay, and on this a superincumbent mass of earth. There was thus always a probability that such a slide would take place as that which killed the man, Boyle. In consequence of this a watch was kept when things were more than usually dangerous, but sometimes there was none. The warning was a shout, and if the men were lucky and ran in the right direction they escaped, but Boyle ran the wrong way and hence lost his life. In fact it was just a matter of chance whether the men escaped or were caught by the falling mass. The miserable apology made by Mr. Dempsey, jun., for the fatal accident is that usual by the falling of some small pieccs of earth gave warning of the approaching fall, but on this occasion they did not. He gave also an indication ot why the work was carried out ill so dangerous a manner, that the contract was for £33,000, and that it would cost twice or thrice as much to work it from the top, instead of the bottom—the way in which the contract was being carried out. And what do we find, that the men had never been warned of the dangerous nature of the work on which they were employed ? We are entitled to say that poor Boyle's life was sacrificed to the manner in which the work was carried out. Apart from the evidence of the dangerous nature of the proceedings, and the conviction of all who saw the way in which the works were carried out that it would be little short of a miracle if an accident had not occurred, we have the fact from which there is no getting away, that an accident had occurred previous to that which proved fatal to the deceased man Boyle. Further, we have the evidence of the Overseer of Works for the Government that he thought the mode of conducting the work dangerous ; that it should have been done downward from the top, and not upward from the bottom ; that it could not have been more dangorously done ; that he warned Dempsey, who made the extraordinary reply that "he hoped there would be 110 accident while he was carrying on the work." In fact, Mr. Dempsey hoped against hope. Moreover, the overseer expressed the opinion that the watch was of 110 use—an opinion which will be shared by most other persons, and was unhappily justified by the event. There are no palliating circumstances in connection with the conduct of the contractor because he could not have been unaware of the risk the men ran. He had the previous accident to warn him—lie had the emphatic opinion of the Government overseer. That lie did something to mitigate the danger by having a watch kept, is true, but he must have known that it was inadequate, and hence his conduct was highly censurable, and it was the duty of the jury to have said so. It could not restore the dead to life, it would not console the widow by its comment, but it could have discharged a public duty and it shrank from doing so on that liappy-go-easy principle, on which the public will have to put their foot down. Why should a bread-winner be lost to his family under such circumstances as those which the inquest discloses, and only those be considered who are responsible for the dreadful loss I We venture to think that if James Boyle, instead of being a labouring man earning his living by an arduous employment, had been some local notability, the conduct of the contractor would have been treated in a very different fashion. But he was as dear to his wife and children, probably, as the best man in the land, to his. It is shocking and astounding that so great misconduct and so serious a calamity should have been pa ssed over in so light a matter, and it will assuredly form the subject of general condemnation. It must be deemed a matter of regret that, holding so strong an opinion of the dangerous nature of the work, the Go-

vernment overseer did not take so:™~- r to protect tho men. It i 3 true tW l* warned Mr. Dempsey, and assort, * , enough that he had no control ove/tl contractor. But it was not inevitnU therefore, that ho should fold his W,?' and leave things to take their tie could have communicated with .C' head of hi 3 department, or with t£ e Mayor ; and then, at all event?, he w ,? have acquitted himself of a which ho seems to have re"arili»rl ♦ lighHy. What blame attaches toh „ however, 13 not of a very serious kin'l and we are sure he will regret that h was not more resolute and ener w The jury recommend that the Govern ment should take some stops to ein *1 against a recurrence of a similar disaster and there can be no reason why it shnuli not make general the protection a-'aW the carelessness of employees, which ' now confined to the mines. So far ' 3 regards Government works, this Coll u be accomplished by making aJem la t provision in contracts for t i. e safety of tho employees, and i ntro e ducing a clause giving compensati n when death or injury results f ro ' culpable neglect. But it is requisite that it should go further, and present a m ea . sure to Parliament defining the manne in which all such works should be carried out, and providing for compensation. \v know of no private rights which include that of perilling the life of a follow creature. Something more than SVmpathy and remonstrance i 3 required in these cases—prevention for the future • and should the death of Boyle lead to security being taken for the lives of others of his class, the death which we all lament may be made the means 0 ' mitigating the risks which in some shape or another labour has to encounter.