THE LATE FATAL ACCIDENT AT SKIPPER'S POINT.

Otago Witness, Issue 2436, 21 November 1900, Page 20

THE LATE FATAL ACCIDENT AT SKIPPER'S POINT.

(From Our Wakatipu Correspondent.) Comment on this unfortunate affair, it is scarcely necessary to say, is abundant, but, as is the rule in such, esses, wide ot the mark. Without straining the memory, half a dozen similar occurrences m the WakaUpu alone may be recalled. Of these three passed oft by .he dispensation of Providence without injury to anyone concerned, two had serious consequences, fclie last one proving fatal to three men.. The most noteworthy oi these occurrences was that the Tipperary mine, Macetown, where it became necessary to tap from below a large body of water, standing in f=anie old working overhead, to a depth of 150 ft. The work was a tedious and most precarious one, the more so as no reliable plans of the old working existed. Weeks of the most anxious toil were spent ; when one Saturday night, or rather Sunday morning, the break occurred —water bursting in in one solid body, charged with debus, mining timbers, tools, etc. Luckily this happened about an hour after everybody had knocked off for Ihe week. Hod the break occuried during working hours not one of the 15 or 17 men usually employed in the mine could have hoped to eicape with his life, as the tunnel was 1200 ft in length. As it was, the water tore up all the aieel rails and sleepers of the tramway, and knocked out many of the sets of timbers, sweeping everything before it in one confused heap. Another similar accident, though on a smaller scale, happened in the Homeward Bound mine, Macetown, the water breaking in after knock-ing-off time. Still another, but less lucky, accident, occurred at the Arrow Falls, where a young man, Mr Donald Mackay, 'sustained a. broken leg and other injuries. These cases show that york of this kind is incidental to mining, and no Govern nient aid or mterference can cither prevent or mitigstc them, and it is therefore no use to invoke the special intercession of the Legislature. THE INQUEST AND VEEDICT. At the inquest held at Skippers, before Mr L. Hotop, Queenstown, ihe circumstances of tho case were discussed at length, the verdict being postponed until the arrival of the inspector of mines. The following is the verdict found : — "We find that Martin Tobin, William Low, and James Scotl met their deaths on the 7th November, 1900, In >he Skippers Sluicing Company's tunnel tail race by a sudden rush of water and debris, through • a blockage in the tunnel whilst clearing it out." The jury added the following rider: — "The jury strongly iirge the Government to make special regulations for tunnel tail races, so as to minimise future accidents, by making more rigid and frequent inspection of mines." The jury also gave the following answers to questions put to them by the coroner : — 1. Recklessness. — We find that there was personal recklessness by all concerned. *"2. Management — We unanimously agree that the manager did not take sufficient precautions to 'protect the lives of his men, recognising the fact that he sacrificed fiis own life through being over confident. 3. Regulations. — On this question we find there is nothing special .'n 'the mining regulations to legulate this class of work. Mr Green, inspector of mines, was present. Mr Wesley Tuiton, solicitor, Queenstown, watched the case on behalf of the company, and Sergeant M'Kenzie, Queenstown, on behalf of the police. This decision of the jury throws the onus upon the manager, on what evidence it is difficult to divine. There is no particle of I>i oof to show that m cleaning away the obstacle he was guilt 3' of even an indiscretion or of want of judgment. The act of partially cleaning out the tunnel cannot be construed as either the one or the other. Besides, it was the only practical way of over Joining the difficulty, and was resorted to aftei eveiy other rneens had been tried and failed. Nor must the fact be overlooked that the manager shared ihe risk with his men. However, the veidict is recorded, and, so fai, tho law is satisncd, but whether justice or injustice has been done io the victims of a cruel accident remains an open question. MINE INSPECTION Eumoui Las it that the inspector of mines, at his last official viwt to the mine, found fault with th-e construction of the shaft and tail race. If this bo so, why was the fault allowed to exi&t? The construction, which has new been in constant use for about four or five years, should have been altered year's ago, for it is here where the leal fault lies. As in nearly every case of the kind, the shaft connecting vertically with the tail race forms far too sharp an angle for Ihe tail race to clear the material as it is brought down by the shaft. Jt doej not require a mind of very acute powers of penetration to perceive that a right-angled bend in a pipe — and the shaft and tail race in question resemble a pipe in every respect — predisposes coarse material, such as large stones, to block the passage. Not only is this palpable mistake allowed to exist, but it is lepeated in. nearly every instance, where such a construction is leqtured as an easement in sluicing claims. Repeatedly has reference been made m this column to such cases, nor has language been spared to point . out Iheir dangers, and the culpability of those who aie responsible for their existence and perpetuation. CONSTRUCTION. In all such cases the shaft, instead of coming down upon the tail race m a vertical direction, should join it on a slope, forming an angle with the vertical of not less than 45deg, thus doing away with a sharp corner for stones to lodge and get .ifimined, blocking the passage of the material and water. The faulty kind of construction — that is to say, the vertical shaft upon, a tail race — is still far too common m sluicing claims, and should be seen to without delaj, for it is here where the danger lies. .