HUNTLY DISASTER

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXIX, Issue 8857, 7 October 1914, Page 6

HUNTLY DISASTER

INQUIRY CONTINUED

WITNESS SPEAKS OP LARGE GAS ACCUMULATIONS. Special to the "Times.” HUNTLY. October 6.

The fourth day’s sitting' of the Royal Commission of inquiry into the causes of the explosion in Ralph's mine. Huntiy, on September 12th was held to-day. James Hislop. a mine manager from the South Island, thought the piflars in Ralph’s mine hardly large enough to support the shafts. Mr Wilfprd (counsel for the New Zealand miners): “Is there not a Possibility of their collapsing ?”—“They would not collapse suddenly, but I think steps ought to betaken to strengthen them."

“Are you still of the opinion that a small Quantity of gas started the explosion?”—"Yes. 1 One good reason for that conclusion is that Martin's body, which was found in the old workings near the scene of the explosion, was not burnt. Had there . been much gae there would hare been signs of considerable fire."

"But there was a large piece of coal in Martin’s head. Might he not have been hurled some distance against the side?”—"lt is possible." "You are able to tell the Commission, are you not. that the gas did hot come from the new fall in No. 6 bord but must have come from the old fall in No. 5?” —"That is my opinion.” To Mr Napier (representing the mine owners) witness said he considered the presence of 1 per cent, of gas in the return air-way was only dangerous because it indicated the presence of larger quantities elsewhere. Fire damp, even where there was a high admixture of gas. had a tendency to diffuse. Witness did not think that there had been a large gas explosion in the beginning. The\ damage was probably done by a series of coal dust explosions which followed.

To Mr Tonks (counsel for the company); Witness did not consider that the mine was dusty; neither did he regard watering as effective for the prevention of dust. , To the chairman of th© Commission: He considered that all workings should be examined for gas. Before men went into the old workings the management should have examined for gas. Some experts said that fine particle® of coal dust were liable to absorb oxygen when exposed to fresh air. and thus- become like gunpowder, liable to explode. To Mr, Dowgray: The old workings in Ralph’s mine were practically return air-ways, and therefore the management, in appointing two inspectors to examine them once a week, were merely complying with the requirements of the Act. Gas found in thimine sine© the explosion indicated the presence of gas in large quantities. He considered that no miner should be allowed to fire his own shots.

To Mr Brown: Witness did not agree with the provision of the Mining Act Amending Bill enabling ' the management to appoint anyone at all to examine the mine. Witness thought such examiners should be required to have had at least five years’ experience as practical miners. He also considered it reasonable for the Act to provide that an examiner should report immediately on leaving the mine. Joseph M. Brownlie, horse driver, described the route taken by the men helping him out the morning of the disaster. In proceeding to draw rails from the old workings he passed through two doors. These were not locked or provided with locks, and no one was there to see that they were kept Closed. To the chairman; Witness had often been told not to go into the old workings. but did not know whether other workmen had been similarly instructed. LARGE QUANTITIES OF GAS. The next witness was Joseph Young, a miner, who. up to a fortnight before the accident, was assistant to Deputy Weir in examining the old workings. Before being sworn. Young said that he did not desire to volunteer evidence, and. further, that if he was compelled to he wanted expenses. The chairman thereupon directed the clerk to issue a subpoena, and Young entered the box while the evidence given by him at the coroner's inquiry was read over to him. This he confirmed. Mr Wilford: "Have you parsed a gas test?”—"Yes. I bar# • certificate is-

sued by Mr Frank Reed inspecting engineer of the Mines Department/'. "Did you leave the mine because of 111-health or because you feared a disaster ?"—"Because of ill-health —Blow poisoning by carbonic acid gas." "Did not tho state of the mine, owing to bleeding gas cause you a lot of concern?"—' r7 Yes ; IT! admit that it did on two. occasions when we found large accumulations of gas." "What do you mean by a largo accumulation? Hundreds or thousands of cubic feet?"— "Would you like to know what I did find?” Mr Wilford: "Yes." Witness (after calculating with pencil and paper): "33,600 cubic feet, "Do you know of occasions when men have been burned by .£*B ignited from boro holes ?"—"No." To Mr Napier: Witness did not deny that he-had told another miner some 1 time ago that there would be an explosion in the mine, but he could not remember having actually done so. He informed the underviewer that he had discovered two large accumulations or gas. and the latter disagreed with witness as to the quantity. ,As far as he knew the accumulations disappeared or were removed within 'a week. On both occasions the inspecting deputy , (Mr Weir) was with witness The entries In the report book mentioned the discovery of gas whenever, it was found, but did not differentiate between large and small accumulations. Witness considered that the inspecting deputy and not he was responsivle to the management If he found a large accumulation hs would tell the deputy. •Mr Tunks: "If the presence of gas frightened you why did you J; 10t lea™ the mine?’ —"Familiarity _ breeds contempt. I had seen gas before I cam* Mr Macassey: "If you regarded the gas as being present in dangerous quantities wby did you not report it to the Inspector of Mines? Wou member that I wa s only an assistantTo Mr Dowgray: There were plaoes.in the old workings where the ventilation was not good. Had he (the witness) reported gas to be P^ nt yn a ous quantity the manager might have upbraided him.' • Mr Brown: "In the interests of others did you not regard it as your duty to report the discovery of this big accumulation of gas?” —"I was not worrying about others. The law of tiou comes first, and, besides, I dad not want to be officious." Mr Wilford: "It would have been like a constable arresting the superintendent of police." Mr Brown: "Not at all. If a man is afraid to report to his manager, or under such circumstances to the inspector of mines, ( the latter would not divulge his name/' Witness: "I am mot afraid of anyone. I am only telling the truth. Mr Brown: "I am merely pointing out that there is a clause in the Act which made it your duty to report conditions which you considered to be dangerous. However, you did not do* it. William Wood, manager of the Extended Mine, informed Mr Wilford undor cross-examination that he considered Martin had passed through . the door from No. 5 to No. 6 bord- In so doing ho would probably liberate a large reservoir of gas, and the ignition of this would cause an explosion. Since the disaster he had observed gas in the mine from the floor to a height as far as he could reach. -He estimated the quantity in No. 5 section at. roughly, 100,000 cubic feet. The workings had since been cleared of that gas. To Mr Dowgray: There was a doubt as to whether mem were sent into the old workings to draw rails on the morning of the disaster.

To Mr Brown: If there had been a large accumulation of i gas in that particular part when the explosion occurred witness did not think that the body of Martin would have ever been found.

Charles Allen, labourer, stated that while he was employed as a miner in Ralph's mine about three years ago he saw gas lit on three occasions. Constable W. G. Wright, who worked assiduously with the rescue parties, de(scribed the circumstances under widen the bodies were found. J. Clout, head banksman, said that as far as he knew the regulations were not less rigidly carried out on pay Saturdav. He had never heard any references to hie escapes of gas in the mine. At this stage the commission adjourned till to-morrow