CORRESPONDENCE

Southland Times, Issue 21820, 24 September 1932, Page 7

CORRESPONDENCE

HEAT AND COAL.

To the Editor.

Sir-4n ■ reply to the letter of even date under the nom-de-plumc of “A Good Miner”: It would appear that he is so good and well fitted for the occupation he professes to follow that he is afraid to attach his signature to the letter, his fear I presume being that if the coal owners could only identify him they would all be clamouring for his services and he might get killed in the rush. . . , , The question of my being a has been miner and having to learn one or two things about mining is mere piffle and I am quite certain that ‘Good Miner could not give me any points in that respect. However, if he thinks he can I hereby issue a challenge to the unknown warrior namely, “Good Miner to debate in the public hall, Ohai, any or all of the questions contained in his letter. Number One of his letter states that a fire in a mine can start without being kindled. In that he is entirely wrong for a fire whether it be lit by human aid or by nature in the form of spontaneous combustion must be kindled by either of the two aforementioned causes. Number Two is fully provided for by the Coal Mines Act and if the skin gets roasted off any person that is due to the fact that the Coal Mines Act is not being complied with. The coal which I said could be stacked at the sides of the road in the mine had not started to heat and if the said coal had been stacked by persons having some knowledge of the business and not rattle-brained individuals that very often pose as good miners there would have been no danger whatever. There is no need for me to go to the dumps on the river flat to see the fires as there are many quite handy to the main road and I am inclined to think that if “Good Miner” was given a job to stack coal in the mine he would pile it so high that he would have a fire whether he wished it or not. Certainly I have heard of sections having to be closed in the Ohai mines owing to fires and that is the reason that no exception was taken to the filling of the coal that has brought on this discussion, but if “Good Miner will go into the whole facts of the case he will find other reasons for the publicity the matter has received. Again I extend the invitation to our friend the “Good Miner” and hope he will accent my offer and I can assure him of fair play so that the matter can be argued out with other good miners to weigh the evidence and decide, for I take it for granted that “Good Miner is not as narrow-minded as to believe that he is the only good miner in the district. —I am, etc., L. S. EDMOND. Ohai, September 23, 1932. THE OHAI TROUBLE. To the Editor. Sir,—l note that the letter from Mr Nicholson replying to statements made by officials of the Miners’ Union appeared on the leader page of the Southland Times and bold type was also used for headlines, so Mr Nicholson can’t have any kick in that respect, having received equal facilities and prominence. The reply by the manager stresses very forcibly tne fact that the mine and coal therein belong to the company. That matter would take up quite a lot of space if a discussion thereon were to be entered into, one would really have to go back to the beginning of time to find out by whom and why the coal was put there, and I have no intention of encroaching on the valuable space of this issue for that purpose. The question of safety of the mine will be watched very closely by others as well as the company, and in view of the fact that Mr Nicholson is so emphatic about the ownership of the mine and minerals he will surely not object to do some safety work if the necessity arises as the risks he would be taking would be in the interests of his own property. The omission of the bridge incident was not because it was considered trifling That question was fully explained in an interview elsewhere, but for your benefit I will repeat it “The officials of the union do not condone or encourage any action involving malicious damage,” and to compare the attempt to blow up the bridge with the pulling of coal under the known circumstances is quite out of the question.

There is no doubt about the pulling of the coal or the assurances that were given to the effect that the coal would not be put on the market ’after it was filled, but the question of who was responsible for the damage to the bridge is still very much in doubt. Until evidence is forthcoming to alter my opinion, I will believe that the explosives were not used by a member of the Miners’ Union as the damage done was so small compared with what could have been done by anyone with only a very slight knowledge of explosives, and further had anyone set out deliberately to cripple the mine or stop the pulling of the coal previously mentioned there are many spots more vital than the bridge which, if damaged, would have cost the company quite a tidy sum to replace or repair. However, as the police have the matter in hand the question of who did the damage will have to remain still in doubt until the crime is definitely proven and the guilty party is brought to book.—l am, etc., L. S. EDMOND,* President Miners’ Union.