THE HUNTLY ENQUIRY.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume I, Issue 210, 9 October 1914, Page 10

THE HUNTLY ENQUIRY.

NASTY SUGGESTIONS. HOODWINKING AND PROFITS. Press Association. AUCKLAND, October 8. When the Huntly Mining Disaster Enquiry was resumed this morning, Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines, was subjected to further crossexamination. Replying to Mr Napier, witness said that the explosives used in Ralph's mine were not permitted as safe explosives under the English Act. Could the manager reasonably have considered that it was not his duty, to test the coal dust? —I think he might have considered it unnecessary. Supposing there had been as much gas in the mine before the explosion as you estimate, would there not have been sufficient to blow the shaft and everything else to pieces?—l will not venture a guess at that. Would you deny that if your estimate is accurate, the amount of gas which, was probably there before the explosion must have approximated three million horse-power? —I cannot say. I take it .you do not know what force would have been necessary to blow the whole mine to pieces? —No. Do you say it was a cause of fear with you that the men all round were inexperienced with regard to gases?— Yes. Did you report that to the Department?—No, I merely regarded it as ■ a contributing cause of danger. Under further examination by Mr Tunks, representing the company, Mr Reed said he did not think this disaster would have happened if they had had a decent fan and decent ventilation. Do you not think that you might have gone further than you did in writing to the Under-Secretary of your fears regarding the mine?— What more could I have done except take a gun to the company? Do .you know if there are any permitted explosives used in Australian mines? —Not that I know of. Do you still say that the Taupiri Company," if'it is unable to procure permitted explosives in Australasia, ought to close the Extended mine because, of the explosives used there?— Yes, and if -I had power I would close the mine tomorrow because ydu are risking the (lives of your men in it. A blown-out I shot amongst that dust would create another holocaust.-*' I think the company ought to be.ashamed of itself for carrying on work and for using ilameproducing explosives in defiance of the inspector's orders. INSPECTOR HOODWINKED. ' Did not the inspector tell the manager that monobel was a permitted explosive?— Yes, but someone in the company had hoodwinked the inspector by telling him that monobel was a permitted explosive. As a matter of fact, monobel No. 1 is permitted, whilst monobel without the number is .not. Are you sure that a "'representative, of the company hoodwinked Mr Bennie? —Yes, Mr Bennie told me the name of the 'man. j ' And because of that you regard it as a fact?— Yes, I do; I would believe Mr Bennie before Iwould believe you or any other representative of ther company.-. . .-■■ i"-.''--". "'•■.■■' ■"' When the commission resumed in the evening, Mr Tunks continued his examination of Mr Reed. SAVING THE PROFITS. In reply to a further query from Mr T»nks, witness said: "If I were a mining inspector for this district, I would close down, the Taftpiri mines

until the company obtained safe explosives. I : would prefer ;to save the miners' lives than save profits for the company." You make an offensive—a particularly offensive —reference to the profits of the company. Why do you do so fBecause I consider it necessary to speak out* It is necessary, I consider, in the 'interests of truth and justice. What has it to do with either ? Everything. Mr Macassey read a memorandum from the Under-Secretary of Mines to the Minister of Mines on "the day of the explosion. This referred to the legal opinion which was obtained by Inspector Bennie regarding his proposal to prosecute for alleged breaches of the Act. The memorandum read as follows: "This shows that the fears of the inspecting engineer with regard to this mine were well grounded, and points to the Urgent necessity of proceeding with the Coal Mines Act Amendment Bill." Attached to the memorandum was a note from the Minister to the effect that he was not aware till after the accident that his instructions to prosecute the manager had not been acted upon. The enquiry was then adjourned until to-morrow. HUNTLY DISASTER. ENQUIRY CONTINUED. Press Association. AUCKLAND, October 9. The enquiry into the explosion at Ralph's mine was continued at to-dav. Mr Boyd Bennie, recalled, stated that there had qnly been one serious burning accident ixl Ralph's mine. None were reported from the Extended mine. Information about the accident to Conn and Wilcox was given to him voluntarily. He found two accumulations of gas in the old workings at Ralph's mine, 212 cubic feet in one place, and 550 cubic feet in another. It was a gaseous mixture of about 6 per cent. Some time later he. interviewed the management of Ralph's mine, and informed them that they should use safety lamps and appoint shot-firers. He did not know of letters that had passed between the

inspector and the Under-Secretary of Mines. He had a conversation with the inspector, Mr Frank Reed, about Ralph's mine, but, having a more intimate knowledge of the mine, he (Mr Bennie) regarded his own opinion as superior. Having no authority to receive instructions from the inspecting engineer, he'acted on his own.opinion. Mr Wilford: And the disaster followed. A full shift was employed at the Extended mine to-day, but a~ reduction of hands will take place almost immediately, thus giving effect to the notice by the management that work will be suspended until permitted explosives are obtained from England. * ALLEGED VICTIMISATION. Mr Wilford applied, on behalf of the New Zealand Miners' Union, for permission to call evidence of alleged victimisation in Ralph's mine, resulting in the formation of what is known as the new union, and in the appointment of indifferent men to responsible positions. Mr Tunks, counsel for the Taupiri Coal Company, and Mr Newton, representing the Huntly Miners' Union, objected, on the ground that the application was outside the scope of the enquiry, and would greatly prolong it. The Commission upheld the objections, the chairman adding that if widespread evidence of such, conditions as, alleged were prevalent, a separate Commission should be set up to investigate them.