I—C. 14.
C—l 4
1914. NEW ZEALAND.
HUNTLY MINING ACCIDENT (REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
Presented to both Houses of the General Assembly by Command of His Excellency.
COMMISSION.
LIVEKPOOL, Governor. To all to whom these presents shall come, and to Feedeeick James Buegess, Esquire, of Thames, Warden and Stipendiary Magistrate ; John Connell Beown, Esquire, of Westport, Mine-manager; and JohnJ|Dowgeay, Esquire, of Granity, Miner. Wheeeas an accident occurred at the coal-mine at Huntly, known as Ralph's Colliery, the property of the Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), on the twelfth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and fourteen, which caused the deaths of forty-three persons working therein : And whereas it is expedient that a Commission should be issued for the purpose of inquiring into the cause of the said accident, and into the working of the existing law in respect to the prevention of such accidents, and for the other purposes hereinafter mentioned : Now. therefore, know ye that I, Arthur William de Brito Savile, Earl of Liverpool, the Governor of the Dominion of New Zealand, reposing trust and confidence in your knowledge, integrity, and ability, and acting by and with the advice and consent of the Executive Council of the said Dominion, do hereby, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908, and of all other powers and authorities enabling me in this behalf, constitute and appoint you the said Feedeeick James Buegess, John Connell Beown, and John Dowgeay to be a Commission for the purpose of making inquiry into the matters hereinbefore referred to, and into the several other matters mentioned in these presents, that is to say,— (i.) To ascertain in what part or parts of the mine the accident occurred, and the nature of the same. (2.) To ascertain how the accident was caused. (3.) To ascertain what lights were used in the different parts of the mine at the time of the accident. (4.) To ascertain to what extent the provisions of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and the general rules, the special rules, and additional rules made in accordance with the provisions of that Act, were complied with in the mine, but more especially as regards — (a.) Ventilation and lighting ; (&.) The examination of the mine ; (fi.) The character of the explosives used ; (d.) The withdrawal of workmen in case of danger ; and (c.) The means of escape in case of accident. (5.) To ascertain the nature and character of the working and general management of the mine, and whether the mine was well and safely managed.
C—l 4.
2
(6.) To determine the efficiency of the inspection of the mine by— (a.) The Inspector of Mines for the district; (b.) The workmen's inspectors. (7.) To make suggestions for the prevention, as far as possible, of similar accidents, and for the safe working of this and other mines in the future. (8.) To ascertain if the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to give the Inspector of Mines full authority to order the use of safetylamps and other appliances if in his opinion such appliances are necessary. (9.) And generally to make inquiry into any matter or thing arising out of or connected with the several subjects of inquiry hereinbefore mentioned, or which in your opinion may be of assistance in fully ascertaining, explaining, and arriving at a fair and just conclusion in respect to the subjects of inquiry, and into the working of the existing law in respect to the prevention of similar accidents, and to report whether any additional legislation is necessary, and the scope of same, or whether an amendment of the regulations under the existing law can be made sufficient to provide reasonable and proper safeguards. And with the like advice and consent I do further appoint you the said Fredbrick James Burgess to be Chairman of the said Commission. And for the better enabling you to carry these presents into effect you are hereby authorized and empowered to make and conduct any inquiry under these presents at such place or places in the said Dominion as you may deem expedient, with power to adjourn from time to time and from place to place as you think fit, and to call before you and examine on oath, or otherwise as may be allowed by law, such person or persons as you may think capable of affording you any information in the premises ; and you are also hereby empowered to call for and examine all such books, documents, papers, maps, plans, or records as you judge likely to afford you the fullest information on the subject of this Commission, and to inquire of and concerning the premises by all other lawful ways and means whatsoever, and also to use the evidence taken in the course of any previous inquiry touching the accident. And, using all diligence, you are required to report to me, under your hands and seals, your opinion resulting from the said inquiry in respect of the several matters and. things inquired into by you under or by virtue of these presents not later than the first day of November next ensuing, stating in such report what steps, if any, it would, in your opinion, be expedient to adopt under the circumstances which you find to exist, and in what manner effect should be given to such recommendation. And it is hereby declared that this Commission shall continue in full force and virtue although the inquiry be not regularly continued from time to time by adjournment, and that you or any two of you shall and may from time to time proceed in execution hereof, and of every power, matter, and thing herein contained. And, lastly, it is hereby further declared that these presents are issued under and subject to the provisions of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1908. Given under the hand of His Excellency the Right Honourable Arthur William de Brito Savile, Earl of Liverpool, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Royal Victorian Order, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Dominion of New Zealand and its Dependencies ; and issued under the Seal of the said Dominion, at the Government House at Wellington, this twenty-eighth day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and fourteen. W. PRASER, Minister of Mines. Issued in Executive Council. J. F. ANDREWS, Clerk of the Executive Council.
3
a—l 4
EBPOBT.
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Arthur William de Brito Savile, Earl of Liverpool, Knight Grand Cross of the Most Distinguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of the Royal Victorian Order, Governor and Commander-in-Chief in and over His Majesty's Dominion of New Zealand and its dependencies. May it please Your Excellency,— The Commission, dated the 28th day of September, 1914, entrusted to us by Your Excellency, was received on the 30th idem, upon which date the Commission assembled at Huntly. On the following day the inquiry was formally opened at the Courthouse, Huntly, but was adjourned after a short sitting to enable the Commissioners to visit the mine and make an inspection of the scene of the accident. The taking of evidence at Huntly was commenced on the 2nd and continued until the 9th October, when the Commission adjourned to Wellington, where further evidence was taken on the 23rd October. During the course of its investigations the Commission examined twenty-three witnesses. The proceedings were open to the public, and full reports were published in the newspapers. The parties represented by counsel were, — (1.) The Mines Department and Inspector Bennie (represented by Mr. P. S. K. Maoassey, Assistant Crown Law Officer, Wellington). (2.) The Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), (represented by Mr. C. J. Tunks, barrister, of Auckland). (3.) The trustees of Ralph's Estate, the owners of the freehold of the mine (represented by Mr. W. J. Napier, barrister, of Auckland). (4.) The Executive of the Taupiri Coal-miners' Union (represented by Mr. G. M. Newton, barrister, of Auckland). (5.) The widows of certain miners killed by the explosion (represented by Mr. A. M. Gould, solicitor, of Auckland). (6.) The widows of certain other miners killed by the explosion (represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford, barrister, of Wellington). (7.) The coal-miners of the Dominion affiliated with the United Federation of Labour (represented by Mr. T. M. Wilford, barrister, of Wellington). With the consent of all parties, it was arranged that Mr. Wilford should call the witnesses and conduct the examination in chief, and that each counsel for the other parties represented should cross-examine in the order arranged among themselves. The Taupiri Company's mine, in which the accident the subject of this Commission's inquiry occurred, is situated in the Township of Huntly, near the Waikato River, and extends under that river in a southerly direction to a considerable distance beyond. The company is the lessee from the owners of two coal-mines, known respectively as Ralph's and the Taupiri Extended Mines. These mines are contiguous but are worked independently, and a barrier of coal 2 chains in width separates the working of one from the other. There is a duly certificated manager in charge of each mine, but Mr. James Fletcher, the manager of Ralph's Mine, exercises a general supervision over both. The operations in these mines are extensive, covering an area of 840 acres, and a large number of men are employed in each colliery. The coal obtained is a lignite of superior quality. Ralph's Mine, the scene of the accident, has three shafts, by any one of which access to or egress from any part of the mine may be obtained. The principal shaft is situated close to the railway-line in the Huntly Township. It descends vertically to a depth of 166 ft., and from the bottom of this shaft the main travelling-way dips uniformly to the end, a distance of 60 chains, in a southerly direction.
C—l 4
4
The method of working the mine is by the system generally followed in mines in this Dominion, known as the " bord-and-pillar system," but in one essential feature the mode of operations in this mine differs from that followed in any other mine in the country. It is usual in coal-mines where the bord-and-pillar system is to remove the pillars when the seam of coal in that section'of the mine has become exhausted, and the standing columns of coal are no longer required to support the superincumbent strata. In Ralph's Mine it is impracticable at present to follow this course, for any collapse of the earth due to the removal of the pillars would involve the almost certain consequence of the waters of the Waikato River or of the Wahi Lake finding their way into the mine, to the great peril of all persons employed therein and the eventual destruction of the property. As a result of these circumstances there is a considerable portion of the mine in which no further operations can be carried on, but which remains in all other respects precisely in the same conditions as regards the existing bords-and-pillars as those " districts " in which operations are actually in progress. This portion of the mine is known as the "old workings," and is so designated by witnesses, and will as such be referred to in this report. It is important to keep in mind the peculiar feature of the Huntly mines just noted, because it has a direct and important bearing on the subject-matter of this inquiry. On Saturday, the 12th September last, a very violent explosion took place in Ralph's Mine whereby forty-three men lost their lives. The manager, Mr. Fletcher, was not in charge of the mine at the time, having been incapacitated by illness for a, week or more, and the deputy manager, Mr. William Gowans, a certificated minemanager, was in charge. From the evidence it appears that the day of the occurrence was what is called an "off day "in the mine. It was the day following the usual fortnightly pay-day, and it is not the custom of the miners to engage in the ordinary work of the mine on such days ; but it is usual for a limited number of workmen to be employed on casual works of a necessary character for facilitating the working, or providing for the security of the mine. It is not disclosed by the evidence for what purpose the majority of the men whose bodies were found in the mine after the explosion went there, but it is conclusively established that a party consisting of five or six men was instructed by Deputy Smith, on the preceding Friday evening, to proceed on the Saturday morning (the 12th) to section 5 of the mine, in the old workings, for the purpose of lifting and removing iron rails which had on the cessation of work been left lying in some of the disused bords. There are two ways by which the old workings can be reached from the shaft— first, by the travelling-road for a distance of '50 chains, thence by bords a further distance of about 10 chains (bord No. 6 of section 5 is open at the northern end, but the entrance is blocked by a door) ; secondly, the old workings can be reached by a more roundabout route, about 70 chains in length, by way of the little dip, southeast of the shaft, entering section No. 5 at the south end. There is no direct evidence as to the route taken by the workmen in going for these rails, except with respect to the horse-driver Brownlie and two young men whom he took to accompany him. These, according to Brownlie's evidence, went the longer way round, by the little dip. The reason for this he explains by saying that he had to take a horse with him to bring out the rails, and that the opening through the door above referred to was not sufficiently large to admit of the passage of the horse. He says that from what Deputy Smith told him he expected the other men to go round by the travelling-way, and after passing through the door at No. 6 bord of section 5 (old workings) to meet him at the place where the rails were to be found. Before he arrived at the place appointed the explosion occurred, and all the men he was to meet there were, without exception, killed. Considerable doubt has been expressed as to the direction taken by the party who were proceeding to the place where the rails were lying, but after careful consideration of the facts and probabilities we have no doubt that they went by way of the travelling-road and entered No. 6 bord by the door previously mentioned. This was the shortest and easiest route, and no special reason has been shown why they should have gone by the other. From the position in which Martin's body was found he would appear to have been the first man to pass through the door. This door was not secured by any lock or other protective fastening.
5
G.—l4
It was contended by some witnesses that, judging by the quantity of firedamp found in bords 4, 5, and 6 even some time after the explosion, at the moment of the ignition bord No. 6 must have been so full of firedamp that it would have been impossible for Martin to enter carrying a naked light with him, and that therefore he must have come from the opposite direction to the way by the door. There is, however, no sufficient evidence that these bords contained firedamp to such an extent as to completely fill them, even at the upper ends. It would appear as if Martin passed through the door carrying a naked light in his hand, and when he had proceeded a short distance down the bord, probably as far as the cut-through to No. 5, he encountered an inflammable mixture of air and firedamp, and an explosion took place. This explosion served to disturb and put in motion the coaldust on the floor and sides of the bord, which being, as recent analysis has shown, of a most highly inflammable nature, ignited with a terrific explosion, and the liberated gases sweeping through the bords and passages of the mine with enormous velocity hurled to great distances, and in most cases destroyed, every obstacle in their path. No man within the immediate range of the explosive action escaped alive. The exact spot where Martin was standing when the explosion took place cannot be determined with certainty. It seems probable from the evidence that his body, which when found was, with the exception of the socks and boots on his feet, entirely devoid of clothing, was carried by the force of the explosion a considerable distance. His coat, which was not destroyed, was found near the third stenton from the door. The probabilities are that he was carrying his coat on his arm, and that'll was the first thing torn from him by the force of the explosion. If he had been wearing it at the time, it is almost conclusively certain that it would have disappeared with the rest of his clothing. The explosion was due beyond any reasonable doubt to the emission of firedamp from the roof'of No. 5 bord in No. 5 section—known as the old workings — where there is a " fall " from the roof of several months' standing. There is an extensive fall in No. 6 bord which was first seen after the explosion, but that, in our opinion, did not contribute the firedamp which was encountered by Martin. Its occurrence is probably due to the explosion. There is not sufficient evidence before us to enable us to say what quantity of gas was present in bords 4, 5, and 6 on the morning of the accident. All those who could have thrown light on the matter have, unfortunately, perished. It is a well - ascertained and accepted fact that a large amount of an inflammable mixture of atmospheric air and firedamp is not essential to the production of an explosion ; but there is no doubt in this instance that the firedamp must have been escaping in considerable quantities to have impregnated the air to an inflammable extent (5-6 per cent.) at the distance from its source at which Martin met it. If Martin entered by the door, as we think is certain, and was carrying a naked light in his hand, it would have been extinguished by the current of air caused by the opening of the door. There is almost a certainty that his light was put out and that he probably relit it at the spot where the explosion originated. In all probability the upper air of No. 6 bord was impregnated with gas to a dangerous extent. Martin entering the door carrying the lamp in his hand would not bring the naked light into contact with this inflammable mixture, but if he had occasion to raise it for any purpose —such as to fix it to his head before entering on his work —an explosion would inevitably follow. It is possible, as suggested, though not probable, that the exudation of gas had not long commenced in No. 5, and had reached No. 6 just when Martin arrived there. Be that as it may, we are perfectly satisfied that if a proper inspection, of the old workings had been made with a safety-lamp prior to these men entering through the door the presence of firedamp in the air must certainly have been discovered, and in that case, without doubt, steps would have been taken, to render the air pure, and the calamity which we now deplore would have been averted. From the evidence it appears to us certain that Martin was the first to enter through the door. Deputy Smith, the official in authority, and the only man, apparently, of that party who was in the habit of carrying a safety-lamp, seems to have been very much in the rear, judging from the position, in which the body was found. The door should not have been open for Martin to pass through until Deputy Smith, or some one authorized for the [purpose, had previously entered with his safety-lamp and examined the place to ascertain its safety or otherwise.
C—l 4
6
There is, unfortunately, no direct evidence as to Smith's movements on that morning, and no absolute proof that he did not enter section No. 5 for the purpose of making an inspection before the workmen arrived ; but the surrounding circumstances and the ascertainable facts make it morally certain that no inspection of that part of the mine was made that morning. There is no evidence to show how long the firedamp had been issuing from the fall in No. 5 before the explosion occurred. The place had been examined by Deputy Wear three days before the accident, and his report states, and he himself swears, that there were no signs of gas at that time. At the conclusion of the inquiry, some three weeks subsequent to its opening, Deputy John McGill came forward to say that Mr. Gowans, the acting-manager, and one of the men killed in the explosion, had informed him that on the afternoon preceding the 12th September he (Growans) had passed bord No. 6 with a naked light without apparently encountering any gas. This evidence, however, throws no additional light upon the matter, for Mr. Go wans made no inspection or examination, and there may have been even then large quantities of gas in the upper part of the bord which he did not detect. This would be more particularly so if he were carrying his lamp in his hand. This evidence, too, is open to the objection that no mention was made at the Coroner's inquest or before this Commission at Huntly of the fact mentioned by Mr. McGill, although it related to a matter of the gravest importance in connection with this inquiry. The important part played by coaldust in a coal-mine explosion was again brought prominently under notice by the Huntly disaster. Dust was plentiful in the mine, but according to the evidence the quantity was not large compared with that found in some mines in Great Britain. It was, however, sufficiently abundant to compel the Inspector of Mines to call the attention of the manager to it, and to direct him to take steps to mitigate it by watering the travelling-road. Mr. Bennie did this primarily out of consideration for the men who had to use the travellingway, but he also realized its danger, and in two successive memoranda to the manager directed his attention to the matter. It is only fair to the Inspector of Mines and to the mine-manager to say that, though as a matter of general knowledge the danger of dust-explosions in a coalmine was known, and recognized, the extraordinarily inflammable nature of the dust in this mine was unsuspected until after the accident. Analyses then made by Professor Harold Baily Dixon, M.A., Ph.D., F.E.S., of the University of Manchester, and Dr. Maclaurin, D.Sc, F.C.S., Dominion Analyst, first revealed its unusual potency in creating a disaster. In the opinion of your Commissioners, some legislative provision should be made having for its object the prevention or mitigation of the danger arising from the presence of dust in a mine. Much evidence was submitted at the inquiry relative to dust-explosions in coal-mines and their remedy, and the Commissioners were fortunate in hearing the opinion of so prominent an authority as Professor Dixon on the subject. Suggestions as to the best means of guarding against the evil will be made later on in this report. With respect to the several matters submitted by Your Excellency to us for our inquiry, we beg to report as follows : — (1.) In what Part or Parts of the Mine the Accident occurred, and the Nature of the Same. The point of origin of the disaster was bord No. 6 in the No. 5 district, the nature of the disaster being an explosion of a large accumulation of firedamp, which raised and ignited a cloud of coaldust, and was thereby intensified and carried on. The explosion traversed the main haulage and travelling roads to the top of Ralph's Colliery downcast shaft, and for a considerable distance towards the Taupiri West shaft, with which Ralph's Colliery workings are connected underground. A large area of mine -workings was also traversed by the explosion. Forty-three persons employed by the Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited) lost their lives as a result of this explosion, which occurred about 7.30 a.m. on Saturday, the 12th September. 1914. That being a no-work day for hewers and truckers, only sixty-two men were engaged in the mine at the time of the disaster ; under normal conditions the number of persons employed underground would be about one hundred and sixty.
7
C—l 4
(2.) How the Accident was caused. The accumulation of firedamp which caused the explosion occurred in bords 4, 5, and 6, owing to inadequate ventilation and inspection. Bords such as these, rising as they do from the southward to dead ends, favour the accumulation of firedamp, the air being stagnant, and there being no signs of stoppings or brattice in the vicinity, having been used. The firedamp mixture was ignited by a miner's naked acetylene cap-lamp carried by John Martin, a contract trucker, while performing his duties in that part of the mine. (3.) What Lights were used in the Diferent Parts of the Mine at the Time of the Accident. For the daily examination of the mine by firemen and deputies before work was commenced safety-lamps were used. Miners and others used acetylene-lamps and other naked lights. Stationary electric lights were installed at the shaft-bottom. At the time of the accident naked lights only were carried in the mine. (4.) To what Extent the Provisions of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and Rules WERE COMPLIED WITH. (a.) As to Ventilation and Lighting. There is no evidence that firedamp was permitted to accumulate in the actual working-places and travelling-roads to and from such working-places in contravention of Special Rule 3, but with respect to the old workings we are satisfied that sufficient examination for gas was not made, and that gas was allowed to accumulate in dangerous quantities. In contravention of Special Rule 1, the manager did not see that the mine was properly ventilated in all parts, and did not see that the working of the mine was carried on with all reasonable provisions for the safety of the persons employed. In. contravention, of Special Rule 16, the door for ventilation and safety purposes connecting bord No. 6, in which the disaster occurred, with the working portion of No. 5 district, and which was only used occasionally, was not locked, or even provided with a lock. In contravention of Special Rule 18, the old workings and return air-courses of the mine, also bords 4, 5, and 6, No. 5 district, were inadequately fenced, persons being therefore liable to inadvertently enter the same. Notwithstanding repeated ignitions and explosions in Ralph's and the adjoining Extended Colliery, any one of which might have created a disaster, the manager continued to permit naked lights to be used, although under Special Rule 14 it was his duty to direct the underviewer to see that locked safety-lamps only were used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp was apprehended. (b.) The Examination of the Mine. The daily examination of No. 5 district, in which the explosion originated, was entrusted to John Whorskey, the holder of a fireman and deputy's certificate of service without examination. He had held an appointment in. that capacity prior to the passing of the Coal-mines Amendment Act, 1909, which first required candidates to pass an examination. Whorskey, with both the other examining deputies, John Skellern and EL Peckham, were killed in the explosion. None of these men had passed the Mines Department's gas test, the only two officials in the mine who had passed such test being Deputy John Darby (deceased) and Joseph Young; formerly assistant inspector of the old workings, but now out of the company's employ. The frequent occurrence of gas in the old workings was, in our opinion, a source of danger, and there is no evidence that No. 6 bord was examined on the morning of the 12th September. Had the provisions of the Act been strictly adhered to on that occasion the explosion would have been averted. We consider, therefore, that no regular or systematic examination for gas was made in the old workings.
a—l 4.
8
On the day of the explosion Whorskey entered the mine at about 5 a.m., and about 7 a.m. wrote in his report-book that his district was safe ; he reported no gas or other dangers. His daily reports were of a formal nature, seldom or ever varying. If Whorskey had entered No. 6 bord, in which Martin's body was found, and where the latter was passing along and met his death on the morning of the disaster, he (Whorskey) could not have failed to discover firedamp with his safetylamp, as with the minimum explosive mixture- —viz., 5*6 per cent.- —his lamp would have become filled with flame, and with a 4-per-cent. mixture the flame would have risen to the top of his lamp-glass. No. 6 bord, if not actually a working-place, was certainly a travelling-place on the day of the explosion, and it is obvious, therefore, that it should have been examined by Whorskey, in accordance with section 40, subsection (42), of the Act, and Special Rules 17, 23, 24, and 25, but it was not so examined by him, nor by any one on his behalf. The only surviving official, Joseph Young, now an ex-employee, who had passed the Government gas test, and had formerly acted as assistant examiner of the old workings (or return-air courses), gave evidence to the effect that the state of the mine caused him a great deal of concern. On two occasions last April he had found accumulations of gas amounting to 33,600 cubic feet, and he had found dangerous quantities in the No. 5 district. At the inquest this witness stated that he had frequently found accumulations of gas in dangerous quantities. Daniel Wear, examiner of the old workings (which constitute the return-air courses) stated that there was no one whose duty it was to test for gas in the old workings, his duty being to look for fires. He added, however, that though it was not his duty to do so, he reported the existence of gas whenever it came under his notice. He had never passed any examination in gas-testing. He stated that he visited bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 on the 9th September, three days prior to the explosion, but saw no gas there. He had no ladder nor any other means by which to test for gas near the roof in any of the high bords of this section, though the fall in No. 5 bord may have afforded means for examination of that particular bord. As the height of many of these bords exceeds 11 ft., the inadequacy of Wear's examination is apparent. The absence of ladders for such examination throughout the mine, as disclosed by the evidence, indicates that the examination of them for firedamp was inadequate and unreliable. We cannot refrain from referring to the frequent occurrence of gas in dangerous quantities in the working-places of the mine, to which we think that sufficient importance was not attached by the manager. (c.) The Character of the Explosives used. The only explosives used in the Huntly mines up to the date of this inquiry was Curtis and Harvey's blasting-powder. No objection had been tjaken to its use by the Inspector or any other person. The mine was regarded as a safe mine, notwithstanding the occasional discovery of gas, as this was not looked upon as a source of danger. The extreme inflammability of the dust in the mine was unsuspected until analyses were made of it after the explosion. The nature of the explosives used in the mine does not affect our opinion as to the cause of the explosion, for it is quite clear from the evidence that no shot was fired in the mine on the day of the accident. (d.) The Withdrawal of Workmen in Case of Danger. There was no evidence tendered at the inquiry to show that at any time the workmen were removed from the mine. The mine had for many years enjoyed an immunity from serious accidents, and apparently no occasion had arisen on which danger to life had been apprehended by the management necessitating the withdrawal of the men. (c.) The Means of Escape in Case of Accident. Three vertical shafts connect the coal-seam with the surface, two of such shafts being equipped with cages and the third with an inclined and protected laddeiway.
9
C—l 4
The depth of these shafts is—two each of 166 ft. at Ralph's Colliery, and one of 207 ft. at Taupiri West Colliery (connected). The diameter of each shaft is 10 ft. The means of escape are adequate. (5.) The Nature and Character of the Working and General Management op the Mine, and whether the Mine was well and safely managed. The coal-seams consist of a superior brown coal, the thickness varying from 10 ft. to 34 ft., the average thickness worked being 20 ft. ; the average dip of the seam is about 1 in 10. The system of work, as already mentioned, is bord-and-pillar. About 250 acres of coal pillars are now standing , . No pillar-extraction has commenced, or is proposed, owing to the fact before referred to —that the surface is traversed by the River Waikato, and in places covered by lakes and watercourses of considerable magnitude, from which inundation would follow if the roof-support were removed. These extensive and unusual ramifications of old bords and stentons (or cut-throughs) require more than ordinary attention, as the conditions are somewhat unique. The tendency for gae.-accumulations in the high places and of spontaneously ignited fires where coal and debris become piled up is great, calling for special care and attention. Special attention was given to the prevention of heating, but we think, on account of the presence of gas, more frequent inspections were necessary. In view of what has been stated above, and of the fact that the Coal-mines Act and the special rules thereunder have to some extent been either neglected or disregarded by the manager, Mr. Fletcher, it cannot be said that the mine was in all respects well and safely managed by him. If Mr. Fletcher had performed his obvious duty in causing safety-lamps only to be used in Ralph's Colliery the disaster would never have occurred. He had ample warnings by previous explosions. A manager has not only to comply with the requirements of the law, but he has a duty to his fellow-man beyond mere statutory obligations. Had the Mines Department known of these cases at the time no doubt legal provision would have been made for the Inspector of Mines to enforce the use of safety-lamps, by which the disaster would have been averted. Of the several cases of injury to workmen by the ignition of gas in Ralph's Mine and the Taupiri Extended, only in one instance—that of Kelly—was the matter reported to the Inspector of Mines. It is unfortunate that the Coal-mines Act does not enforce the reporting of all cases of injury by gas-ignition, whether trivial or serious. It only requires a report where the accident is attended with " serious injury to any person," leaving it to the manager to decide as to what is or is not a serious injury. The manager in these cases decided the injuries were not serious, but we are of opinion that where the man is incapacitated from work for fourteen or more days, as was the case in more than one instance, the injury should not be treated as anything less than serious. (6.) The Efficiency of the Inspection of the Mine by (a.) The Inspector of Mines for the District. With regard to the efficiency of the inspection of the mine by the Inspector of Mines for the district, your Commissioners find that the present occupant of the position, Mr. Boyd Bennie, has been assiduous and conscientious in the discharge of his duties, and has shown himself to be a capable and painstaking officer ; but we consider that on occasions he has been satisfied with less than a strict and prompt compliance with orders given by him. to the manager with respect to matters relating to the working and safety of the mine. He has regularly visited and inspected the mine, usually four times annually, except during the present year, when up to the time of the disaster he had made seven visits to the mine. We have no reason to think that his inspections were otherwise than thorough and conscientious so far as regards the working-part of. the mine, but we are of opinion that it would have been better if more attention had been given by him to the old workings, which actually formed part of the return airway of the mine. It is, however, due to the Inspector to say that it was at his instigation that this part of the mine was regularly inspected by the company's officials.
2—C. 14.
a—l 4
10
With regard to the occasional discoveries of gas in different places in the mine, it appears to us that the Inspector does not seem to have realized to its full extent the gravity of the situation, as disclosed by the presence from time to time of this gas. In our opinion, after the explosion by which Kelly was injured, the use of safety-lamps should have been insistently urged upon the manager. The Inspector quite honestly considered that the gas occurring in the mine could be kept harmless by careful inspection and proper ventilation, and that no risk was run of any ignition or explosion by continuing the use of naked lights. That in this he was guilty of an error of judgment is too abundantly proved by the terrible accident which resulted from the continued use of naked lights. Doubt has been expressed as to whether an order given by the Inspector for the use of safety-lamps could be enforced by him under the present Act or Special Kules. In the opinion of the Inspector, and apparently of the officers of the Mines Department, the Inspector has no power to do so. There is no direct authority given by the Act or rules to the Inspector to order the use of safety-lamps ; but we are of opinion that section 58 of the Act, though not apparently framed for such purpose, may be employed on an emergency to effect the purpose by an indirect method. The Inspector duly reported to the Under-Secretary of Mines the results of his inspections and his observations on the condition and working of the mine, and after the accident to Kelly instructions were received by him fiom the head of the Department to prosecute the manager for a bieach of Special Rule 14 for not providing safety-lamps, subject, however, to a favourable, legal opinion of the case being obtained. In consequence of an adverse opinion being received by the Inspector from the firm of solicitors to whom he referred, the matter, no proceedings were taken against the manager. Before there was time for the Department to conconsider the position, and to decide what further steps should be taken to secure the safety of the mine, the disaster apprehended by the Inspecting Engineer of the Mines Department (as shown by his several memoranda to the Under-Secretary) unfortunately occum d. Mr. Reed is entitled to credit for bringing so forcibly under the notice of the Mines Department his fear of impending danger in the Taupiri Company's mine by reason of the gas known to exist there. We agree with him in his view that, not being the Inspector of Mines for the district, he had no right to interpose in any directions or orders given to the manager, although his right as an Inspector of Mines to inspect the mine is beyond question. We cannot refrain, however, from saying that we regret that Mr. Reed did not, in the interests of human life, personally visit and examine the mine and acquaint the manager of his very strong conviction? as to the imminent danger threatening the mine. We also regard it as unfortunate that specific instructions were not given him by the Mines Department to do so. Mr. Reed had no occasion to visit the mine for a considerable time before learning of the presence of gas there, but he had, while at the Thames on other official business, arranged with the District Inspector to visit the mine in his company only a short time before the explosion, and he had with him two electrical lamps for trial there, but, being called away to the West Coast on official business, the visit of inspection to the mine was unfortunately deferred. (6.) The Efficiency of the Inspection of the Mine by (b.) The Workmen's Inspectors. No evidence was given by the workmen's inspectors before the Commission, but from the evidence of other witnesses we learned that only two inspections were made by the workmen's inspectors during the past twelve months —that is, practically, since the new union was formed after the first strike during 1912. Inspector Bennie in his evidence complained that he had received no help from the union or their check inspectors. The reference to them in his letter to the Under-Secretary as the creation of the mining companies was not supported by any witnesses produced before the Commissioners, who declined to hear evidence attempting to show victimization.
11
C—l 4
(7.) Suggestions for the Prevention, as far as possible, op similar Accidents, and for the safe working of this and other mlnes in the future. Your Commission3rs have arrived at certain conclusions with respect to the prevention of future accidents in mines, but they find that in most instances their intended recommendations have been anticipated by the Coal-mines Amendment Bill now before Parliament. This is particularly so with regard to —(«) Ventilation, (b) safety-lamps, (c) duties of inspectors. Ventilation. We approve of the provisions of clause 7 of the Bill now before the Goldfields and Mines Committee. In our opinion the observance of these provisions will conduce to the safety of the mines and the comfort of the miners working therein. [Mr. Brown concurs in this recommendation, except with regard to clause 7, subclause (1), paragraph (a), subparagraph (Id). With respect to this he recommends that Inspectors of Mines should have discretionary power to increase the number of men in an air-split to eighty-five.] Safety-lamps. We approve of and adopt as our recommendation respecting safety-lamps paragraph (a) of subclause (1) of clause 7 of the Bill now before the Committee. Duties of Inspectors. We concur in the provisions of clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill as regards the duties of Inspectors, and submit these clauses as our recommendations on this matter. Coaldust in Mines. We deem it imperative that legislation should be passed with the object of preventing, if possible, or mitigating the danger arising from the presence of dust in coal-mines, and to that end we recommend the incorporation in our Coal-mines Act of section 62 of the Coal-mines Act of Great Britain (1911) in its entirety. Notice of Accidents. The provisions of the Coal-mines Act with respect to the reporting of injuries to workmen are somewhat loose and uncertain, as it is left to the judgment of the mine-manager in every case to decide whether or not the injury is a serious one. In this respect section 80 of the Coal-mines Act, 1911 (Great Britain), is much to be preferred to the corresponding section in our Act, and we beg to recommend its inclusion in the New Zealand statute, in lieu of section 62. Shot-firing in Dusty Mines. We recommend that the following provisions be incorporated in the Coal-mines Act : In all dry and dusty mines, and in mines where the Inspector of Mines is of opinion that dust of a highly inflammable nature exists in dangerous quantity, and also in mines where safety-lamps are in use, no explosives but those permitted by the Chief Inspector of Mines shall be used, and all shot-firing shall be done by officials specially appointed by the manager. (8.) as to whether the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to give the inspector of mlnes full authority to order the use of Safety-lamps and other Appliances if in his Opinion such Appliances are necessary. We are of opinion that the existing law does not give the Inspector of Mines direct authority to order the use of safety-lamps or other appliances. There is no provision in the Act giving in precise terms any such authority. Section 58 might be employed as a last resource by an Inspector as an indirect method of compelling the use of safety-lamps or other necessary appliances, but it was not framed for such purpose, and the use of it is, at best, a clumsy and unsatisfactory expedient. We recommend the insertion in the Act of a direct and definite section, giving the Inspector power to order the use of safety-lamps and any appliances he deems necessary.
C.-ll
12
Summary. We have the honour to report the result of our investigations to be as follows : — 1. The disaster occurred in No. 6 bord of No. 5 section of Ralph's Taupiri Mine. 2. The explosion was caused by a naked light used by Martin (deceased), thereby igniting a gaseous mixture of CH 4 in No. 6 bord. 3. Safety-lamps were used by the mine officials for examination purposes, but naked lights were used throughout the mine by the workmen. 4. The ventilation of the mine generally was efficient, but was defective as regards section 5. 5. The examination of the mine as a whole was satisfactory, but the inspection of the old workings was inadequate, and the absence of ladders in the high bords prevented a thorough examination in such places for gas. 6. The only explosive used was Curtis and Harvey's blasting-powder. 7. There was not to our knowledge in the past history of the mine any occasion on which it was necessary to withdraw the workmen. 8. The means of escape in case of accident were afforded by three shafts, which in our opinion were adequate. 9. The management of the mine was, speaking generally, good, but in certain respects — e.g., the prompt carrying-out of the Inspector's orders, the precautions taken against danger from gas, the ordering of safety-lamps, and the examination of the old workings—it was lax and unsatisfactory. ifc The Inspector of Mines is a careful and competent officer, zealous and conscientious in his work ; but he was remiss in not exacting prompt and strict obedience to his orders, in not more frequently visiting the old workings, and he committed an error of judgment in not insisting on safety-lamps being used in the mine after the accident to the miner Kelly. 11. The inspection by the workmen's inspectors was infrequent and valueless. 12. No inspection was made of bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 of section 5 (old workings) by any person on the morning of the accident, before the workmen were permitted to enter. 13. The door at the end of bord No. 6 of section 5, where it connects with the working-part of the mine, was not locked, nor in any other way securely fastened. If there had been no neglect with respect to the matters mentioned in the two preceding paragraphs the disaster in the mine could not have happened. 14. This report contains suggestions for the prevention, as far as possible, of similar accidents, and for the safe working of this and other mines in the future. Before concluding our report we would like to place on record our high appreciation of the prompt and spontaneous manner in which the attempted rescue of the men in the mine was made by the management and workmen, and of the courage and resource displayed by all engaged in the work. We desire to express our appreciation of the assistance rendered to us during the inquiry by the learned counsel engaged, and of the able and courteous manner in which the examination of witnesses was conducted by them. The Secretary, Mr. J. T. Watkins, has merited our sincere thanks for the able and satisfactory manner in which he has discharged his duties. We return herewith Your Excellency's Commission, and also enclose herewith— (1.) Verbatim report of the evidence submitted to the Commissioners. (2.) Notes of the evidence taken before the Coroner at the inquest, which it was agreed should be accepted and used as though tendered to this Commission. (3.) Plans, documents, and letters produced at the inquiry. (4.) Addresses of counsel appearing before the Commissioners. And this our report we have the honour to respectfully submit, for the consideration of Your Excellency, in obedience to the Commission addressed to us. Given under our hands and seals, at Wellington, this 30th day of October, 1914. Fred. J. Burgess, Chairman. J. C. Brown. John Dowgray.
13
C;—l4.
11. B. DIXON, i
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Huntly, Thuiibday, I'bt Ootobkh, 1914. The Commission met at 10 a.m. Mr. C. J. Tunks appeared for the Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited); Mr. W. J. Napier for the trustees of Ralph's Estate, the owners of the mine; Mr. P. S. K. Macassey for the Mines Department; Mr. G. M. Newton for the Taupiri Coal-miners' Union; Mr. T. M. Wilford for the New Zealand coal-miners affiliated with the Federation of Labour and the United Labour Party, and certain of the relatives of the deceased miners; Mr. Gould for other relatives of the deceased miners.
Huntly, Fhiday, 2nd October, 1914. Hahold Baii.y Dixon, Professor of Chemistry in the University of Manchester, sworn and examined. (No. 1.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your full name and qualifications? —Harold Baily Dixon. 1 am Professor of Chemistry in the University of Manchester. 1 am and have been working on the nature of explosions for the last twenty-eight years, and for the last twenty-five years 1 have been interested in explosions in mines. 1 was a .member of the Royal Commission on the Kxplosion of Coal-dust, in Mines that was sitting between 1891 and 1894. I have also been a member of the Royal Commission on Coal-supplies; and, lastly, I have been a member of the Executive Committee of the British Home Office to investigate explosions in coal-mines and to carry out experiments on a large scale, with a view to rinding the nature of such explosions, and, impossible, to find a remedy for them. 2. You have inspected Ralph's Mine and come to certain conclusions with regard to what you saw there? —Yes, 1 have made two inspections of the mine since the accident—the first on the Monday following the explosion, the 11th September, and again last Tuesda) , , the .29th September. After making my first inspection I wrote a report on the subject, dated the 15th September, to the Minister of Mines, which is as follows : — "Sir,— "Wellington, N.Z., 15th September, 1914. "1 am glad to comply witli your request conveyed in your letter of to-day's date that I should give you my opinion on the question of the future working of coal in Ralph's Mine at Huntly, and of coal in similar seams. " Though it is not possible at present to locate the origin of the explosion in Ralph's Mine, the main loss of life was due to the inflammation of coaldust lying on the roads. The flame traversed the main intake airway, which is also a haulage-road to the downcast shaft. No other inflammable agent but coaldust could have been present in this intake airway in sufficient quantities to propagate an explosion. Parts of this road are wet, but the dust-cloud raised by the blast was carried over the wet places and the flame of the burning dust-cloud ignited the dust beyond until it reached the shaft. The flame also penerated many of the other roads, blowing stoppings here and there into the returns. " I am of opinion that it would be advisable in future to work this and similar coal-seams with safety-lamps, and I believe that modern electric lamps (which give far better illumination than oil-lamps) would be the best. There are several types of electric lamps which have passed the British Home Office tests. Until such lamps are procurable I am of opinion that it would be safe to work with naked lights, provided (1) that strict tests were made for firedamp before the miners entered, and (2) that the dust in the main roads was rendered uninflammable either by systematic watering or bj" systematic admixture with finely divided inert dust, such as powdered shale, limestone, or fullers' earth. " In the Home Office experiments carried out at Eskmeals, Cumberland, it has been found that it becomes more and more difficult to propagate an explosion through a gallery containing finely divided and easily inflammable coaldust when the latter is mixed with more and more inert dust in a fine state of division. When the inert material is equal in weight to the fine coaldust it is practically impossible to start an explosion by such means as the discharge of 24 oz. of blasting-powder from a cannon placed in the gallery. Hie inert dust must be so finely divided that any disturbance of the air that raises the coaldust into a cloud will also raise the inert material. " The damping of coaldust by finely divided water-sprays (an atomizer is most effective) is also a sure means of preventing the coaldust being raised. A combination of inert dusting and spraying may be used, the inert dust being thrown into the roof, where it is sometimes impossible to water. Safety depends on either preventing a dust-cloud being raised or on rendering such dust-clouds as are raised uninflammable by diluting the combustible with incombustible particles. " The quantity of inert dust to be added depends, of course, on the amount of coaldust made in the mine. It is the fine dust blown off and shaken out of the tubs in haulage that is the most dangerous, and to this must be added in many cases dust carried from the screens on the surface down the downcast shafts and deposited on the haulage-road. In the case of Ralph's Mine, where the roofs are good throughout most of the mine, efficient watering would be very easy to carry out. In a few places inert dust might be used where watering might be difficult. "It may not be possible to prevent some .minor ignitions of fire-damp occurring, but I believe it is possible and practicable to prevent such small inflammations developing into a destructive explosion such as caused the disastrous loss of life at Huntly. " I -have, &c, "The Hon. the Minister of Mines, Wellington." . "Harold B. Dixon.
C—l 4.
14
[H. B. DIXON.
That letter was written in answer to some specific questions regarding the explosion put to me by the Minister of Mines. 3. Had you seen the ground at the time you wrote that letter? —Yes, i. You have visited the mine subsequenth', since writing that letter? —Yes. 5. And did you see anything on your second visit to induce you to qualify anything in that letter? —Yes, slightly, as I say in the beginning of the evidence given by me at the Coroner's inquest, which 1 will read to you. [Evidence given at inquest proceedings read by witness, as follows.] " Harold Baily Dixon, sworn, saith : I am Professor of Chemistry in the University of Manchester. I adhere to the opinion expressed in the letter from me to the Minister of Mines dated 15th September, 1914. I was not then, however, acquainted with the fact that gas in large quantities had been discovered in the mine. I have again inspected the mine since that report. The seat of the explosion can be identified now within a small area. At my former inspection it was evident that up to No. 5 level the force of the explosion had been outward. When I got up as far as the cabin at No. 6 the force of the explosion is away from the shaft in the direction of Taupiri West. It is clear, therefore, the explosion must have started between those two points, or have come into the main haulage-road from No. 5 level, or somewhere between those two points. Yesterday 1 inspected the area to the north of the haulage-road and found gas in the old workings. 1 found a stopping and a door blown towards the main haulage-road. The initiation of the explosion must have come from beyond that—that is, inside that door. Since there is a fall there (the old fall) and gas making there at the present time, it seems there are the exact conditions required for an explosion, for it is known that a man went in there with a naked light. The gas-explosion so initiated stirred up the dust along the roads and ignited it. The explosion of dust was propagated along No. 5 level to the main haulage-road, where it spread in both directions, reaching the downcast Ralph's shaft, but dying out towards the west through lack of pure coaldust. The amount of dust in this mine would ordinasily be described as small —that is, in the mine generally. A great quantity of dust is not- necessary in a lignite-mine to produce an explosion, or in any mine. For the last three 3'ears 1 have been a member of the Home Ofh'ce Committee which lias been experimenting on a large scale with a view of finding out what kind of flame will ignite coaldust so that it will propagate an explosion along a gallery, and, secondly, what means are effective in stopping an explosion from being propagated. With ordinary bituminous coal it is not easy to start a coaldust-explosion. We have found that a concussion and an intense flame are both required, the concussion to stir up the dust so as to form a cloud in the air and the intense flame to ignite it. We have made our experiments in a model steel mine, 7 ft. 6 in. in diameter and I,OOOft. long. We have found that a blown-out shot, produced by a discharge of blasting-powder blown out of a cannon, gives the concussion and intense flame necessary for the stirring-up and ignition of the dust. This may be also effected by firing a mixture of fire-damp and air, which gives the concussion and intense flame. The amount of dust we have found necessary to put along the steel g-allery in order to propagate an explosion is less than 1 lb. per lineal foot of the gallery— that is, when stirred up, about J oz. of dust per cubic foot of air. This amount of dust would look exceedingly small lying in a mine—it could hardly be noticed. We have found different coaldusts to differ rather considerably in their power of being ignited. Two days ago I made some tests with powdered coal from this mine. It is more inflammable than any coal I have yet tested. At the Home Office Experimental Station we have been trying the effect both of inert dust and of spraying with water, and we find that both remedies are effective, provided that you add enough incombustible dust or enough water. I should not endorse the statement that watering is out of date in England. I know a good many mines where it is carried on. Watering to be effective must be thoroughly done; merely watering the roads may be useless. It must be sprayed so as to fall anywhere where the dust might be. We have had the floor quite wet, and yet an explosion has gone through it. Coaldust floating on water can be raised up and fired. Inert dust must be well distributed —that is, thrown about so that it falls on to ledges, the roof, and timbers. There are two essential things with regard to the incombustible dust : first, it must be so fine that it is raised up when the coaldust is raised; and, secondly, it must be harmless to the miners. There are many dusts which can be finely divided and are harmless to breathe in small quantities. The cleaning-up of very dusty mines "where a large quantity of dust is being continually made must be systematically carried out, or otherwise there will be too great an accumulation of coal and inert dust. From time to time the floors have to be swept up and fresh inert dust added. I have seen the dusting carried out practically at the Altofts' Mine, in Yorkshire; the powdered shale is taken in a tub and thrown by hand, the tub travelling along with the air-current, and the cloud of, shaledust will settle, like the coaldust, on ledges, and so on. With regard to other precautions, the Home Office has just instituted severe tests for safety-lamps, and the test for permitted explosives is a very severe one. In England we hope by the use of secure safety-lamps and permitted explosives to stop even the initiation of an explosion, but we are urging proprietors and managers to render coaldust harmless by adding inert dust or by watering, or by a combination of the two, for sometimes that is more feasible than either of the other two alone. Sometimes the floor can be watered without any damage while the roof cannot, and vice versa. I do not know any case where an explosion has taken place where the inert-dust remedy has been used. "By Mr. Macassey : There have been several electric lamps that have passed the Home Office tests. " By Coroner : No large amount of gas-mixture would be required to start a dust-explosion —probably a few hundred feet of such mixture would suffice to start such an explosion. It would not be a pure gas-explosion after the flame had travelled, say, 50 ft. Some dust was
H. 15. DIXON.]
15
C—l 4.
burned in the No. 6 bord where Martin was found. I agree generally with the statements in the card produced, ' How to test for firedamp.' An average miner would not be able to detect the presence of gas in less quantities than 2 or per cent. It would require careful practice to detect gas in less quantities than that. It is only in recent years that systematic tests have been made on the explosion of coaldust on the large scale, " Q. Do you think that a competent manager ought to have known that dust was present in this mine in a dangerous condition and quantity? —A. I think very few managers would have recognized that dust existed in this mine in dangerous quantity, and unless the}? had been interested in the dust question and made experiments on it I do not think they would have been aware of the dange,rous character of lignite-coal dust. Falls are sometimes produced by the gas-pressure. The variations in barometric pressure have some influence on the presence of gas in a mine, but not a very large influence. If a man were testing for gas by himself it would be a great temptation for him not to put the light in the lamp too low for fear it might go out. This would prevent it -being an. effective test for small percentages of gas. We went over the fall in No. 6 bord, but we could not get over the big fall in No. 5. In No. 5 there was a considerable accumulation of gas above where we were. It put my lamp out. If the gas were present in any quantity you could test for it by holding the lamp over your head, but not if it were present only in small quantities. You would then have to be level with the light. There could not have been a great accumulation of gas over the big fall when Wear inspected it on the 9th September, judging by his evidence. We did not inspect it until the 29th September. There was then some ventilation, which must have swept away some of the gas. On the 29th September no one could have stood on the top of the fall. I was only oft. up when my lamp went out. I think if the old workings are left as open as they are now they should be treated with inert dust. No fresh dust is accumulating now, and one dusting with inert dust should be sufficient for a long time. Water would be always drying up. " By Mr. Northcroft : Under 2 per cent, of gas would be too slight for even an official of the mine to detect with an ordinary oil-lamp. It would require to be a larger percentage of gas to be detected by holding the lamp above the head. I should think Wear might have detected 2i per cent, by holding the lamp a foot above his eyes. " By Mr. Napier : To secure safety by the use of inert dust it is necessary to mix with the coaldust an equal weight of finely divided incombustible dust so that the dust-cloud raised into the air by a blast or concussion will contain rather more incombustible than combustible matter. Such a dust-cloud cannot be ignited by the flame of a blown-out shot or by a small gasexplosion. " By Mr. Bennie : The percentage of firedamp in air must be at least 56 before you have an explosion. Ido not suggest that a blown-out shot caused the explosion on the 12th September, as I understand no shots were fired that morning. All the evidence seems to me to point to the fact that the explosion was caused by the ignition of a quantity of gas. I have not heard that sufficient evidence has been adduced to show that there was a considerable quantity of gas at the fall in No. 5 before the explosion, but there is no doubt that there has been a considerable quantity of gas at that fall since the explosion. " By Coroner : The particular bord where Martin was found must have been filled with gas from the point where he fired it to the roof. " By Mr. Bennie : It is possible that sufficient gas might have been held in the cut-through between 5 and 6 to have caused the explosion on Martin passing with a naked light. I think Martin must have gone some little way in after going through the door before he ignited the gas. There was a rise from the body to the door. If Martin came through the door the assumption is that there was not a large quantity of gas in No. 6 bord. " By jury : There must have been over 7 per cent, of gas in No. 5 when my light went out. The sample of coal I tested with was fresh from the face. Fresh dust would be falling in the haulage-way out of the tubs. There are more delicate methods of testing for gas —for instance, the hydrogen-lamp, with which you can see if there is A per cent, present, and | per cent, you can find quite easily. I am not suggesting that it should be used here. Life-saving appliances should always be within reach, and miners trained in their use. I think each large mine should have some of their men trained in the use of life-saving apparatus, as the men who explore the mine after an explosion must be accompanied by some one who knows the workings." 6. Is there anything you wish to add to that?—l wish only to make it quite plain that the first letter, the one to the Minister of Mines, was written in answer to certain specific questions. 7. Mr. Wilford.~\ May I at the outset ask that consideration which the uninitiated requires of a professor. Please use as simple terms in your replies as possible, so that I may understand them? — I will try. 8. The first point I want to discuss with you is the question of an examination of gas. Supposing a man is sent down the mine by the Taupiri Company to examine the mine with the idea of reporting whether it is safe for work, can that examination be efficient in a mine such as this one unless a ladder is used to reach the high places? —Do I understand you to mean in the working-places or generally ? 9. Wherever there are high places which a man cannot reach without putting a lamp up, say, 20 ft. ? —Clearly you cannot examine for gas 20 ft. above the floor unless you have some means of getting a lamp there. 10. Can an examination be efficient unless a ladder is used, to reach the high places?—lf there are high places it requires a ladder. 11. Tf a place is so high that it cannot be reached by a man standing on the ground, is it possible to make an efficient examination without a ladder? —Personally I think not. You mean, of course, with a lamp?
a-14.
16
[H. B. DIXON.
12. Yes; I do not mean that it cannot be made by other means? —That is so. 13. You say, "Personally 1 think not": why not say "No"?— You asked me whether i( is possible to make an efficient inspection of a high place without a ladder. 14. Can such an inspection be efficient unless ;i ladder is nsed to reach the roof? —No. You mean, in a high place which a man could not otherwise reach? 15. Can an examination be efficient unless a ladder is used?—My answer is, for a high place 1 personally think not. 16. Why do you say that?— Because I can only use my own knowledge. 17. Then if there is no ladder, under such a condition such an examination is useless: any other examination would be useless? —No, f would not like to say that. 18. Supposing you have got a place 20 ft. high to be examined by a man who has no ladder, how can he make an efficient examination under such conditions?— The examination cannot be so efficient as to enable a man to swear that there was no gas in the roof, but you ask me to say that it is useless. 19. Then there might b< 1 a large accumulation of gas undiscovered? —There might. 20. Then, if Wear went through places that were out of his reach without being able to raise his hand to the highest points, and he had no ladder, such an examination would not be a guarantee that there was no gas in those places?— No. 21. And would be useless for all practical purposes for the area out of his reach? — I do not understand the word " practical." 22. For "warning" purposes, then?—lt is quite clear that ho could not test for gas places which were out of his reach. 23. Did you see a ladder in your walk through—in the high places?—l only saw one ladder in the mine—in the part I went through. 24. How many places did you go into which were too high for a man to reach with a lamp without a ladder: we will find out later how many there are?— That would be hard to say, exactly.^ 25*' Would there be fifty? —No, but 1 went into perhaps half a dozen such places. '26. You went into half a dozen places in which an efficient test could not be made without a ladder?—A good test for the gas in the roof? 27. That is what I am asking?— Yes. 28. In those half-dozen places would a ladder have enabled an efficient test to have been made for gas?—A sufficient ladder would. 29. Did you see any suitable ladder in the mine to reach the highest places so that an efficient test could have been made for gas?—l did not measure the only ladder I saw. . 30. Did you see any suitable ladder in the mine : was the ladder which you saw suitable? — I could not answer that because I did not measure the ladder. 31. Could you not tell us whether the ladder was suitable to reach the highest places you saw?—No, I cannot tell you. 32. Then if there were no ladders where ladders were required to make efficient tests for gas, it is possible that the examiners frequently walked under considerable accumulations of firedamp without knowing it?—lt is possible. 33. Is it improbable? —I do not know the conditions of the mine sufficiently to answer that 34. Would the absence of ladders be a reason why any men who were examining the mine at first failed to detect firedamp accumulations which may have started the explosion?— The evidence as I have gathered it would lead me to say that Wear did test up in the roof where the gas was evidently coming from on the Wednesday before the explosion. 3."). You mean in the one place where gas came from eventually?— Yes. 36. As to the other parts of the mine you know nothing?—l do not know. 37. Now, it must stand to reason, must it not, that if it is possible for gas to collect in the roofs of the places which are inspected, a man might quite safely walk below the accumulations of firedamp without noticing it?— Clearly gas may he in the roof, if it is a high roof, and a man might walk underneath without noticing it. 38. And might report that particular locality safe, whereas it was dangerous? — That might be so. 39. Now, if you have an accumulation of gas for some tiiue in a given place, will }'ou always on a test being made find afterdamp? Would you after some time find afterdamp?— No. 40. You would not have any afterdamp there under the conditions I have mentioned unless there had been combustion ?—No. 41. And if there had been combustion, and the afterdamp was present, but air had been put through it, it is possible that the afterdamp, which is the lightest, would be swept away?— The afterdamp is heavier than air ; the firedamp is lighter than air. 42. The afterdamp would not be blown away until the firedamp had been blown away?— No. The afterdamp is heavier and therefore would come out of the cavity in the roof. The firedamp remains up in the roof. The afterdamp would be swept away first; it would not remain in the roof. 43. T want to know the effect of an air-current on afterdamp and firedamp. You mean that only the afterdamp would be swept away? —The afterdamp would be swept away before any firedamp that may be there. 44. Now, do you consider that an examining deputy carrying only one lamp—a safety-lamp —is fully equipped for an efficient examination ?—That would depend entirely upon the nature iif the workings he had to examine. Are you speaking of the main workings or the old workings? 51. Do you not think an examining deputy should carry more than one safety-lamp for an efficient examination I—Yes.1 —Yes.
H. B. DIXON.]
17
0.—14.
46. I was talking about the number of lamps, not the number of men? —Well, one man with two lamps. 47. You turn your flame down to one-tenth of an inch?— About an eighth of an inch. 48. Do you think a man with one safety-lamp would be fully equipped for an examination? — He would probably not be able to detect small quantities of gas, but when the percentage was above 2-J per cent, he should detect it. 49. Is not there a liability of his lamp going out?— Yes, after he puts his lamp into firedamp. 50. Your lamp went out; yours was the only one that did so?— Yes, because I went up high on to the fall. 51. Do you not think an examining deputy should carry more than one safety-lamp for an efficient examination ? —Yes. 52. Then it is not an efficient examination with one safety-lamp?—No, I would not say that. He should carry two :it would be better. A man may make an efficient examination with one, but he would be better if he had two. 53. With the naked light or a safety-lamp having the ordinary luminous flame, is it possible to detect firedamp when present below explosive proportions ?—Yes, it is possible. 54. It is possible with a naked light to detect firedamp though that firedamp has not reached its explosive point? —Yes it is: it alters the flame. 55. Is not the effect of the firedamp on that luminous flame a kind of cap on it?— There is no doubt a cap, but it is not visible in the same way as on a turned-down flame : it elongates the flame. 56. Now, it is possible that there may be accumulations of firedamp present below explosive proportions on the ground, and of explosive proportions out of the man's reach above his head?— Certainly. 57. That is to sa,y, that an examining deputy going through a mine may, for instance, if he tested on the ground, find by the appearance of the flame that there was firedamp, though not of expjosive proportions, and he might be satisfied to go right on, while above his head there might be highly explosive proportions. Because there was only a small quantity below it would be no indication of large proportions above? —No. 58. That is to say, the test is no test?—On the ground, no test. 59. Unless it is tested to the roof it is no test?— Yes, it is a test. If you were sure that half-waj- up there was no cap at all you would know that there was no great accumulation of gas above. 60. If it were 20 ft. high the ground test would be no test?—lt would be no test of what is 20 ft. above his head. 61. If a man went through with a lamp and found firedamp below explosive proportions, but could not reach above, and went out and reported it safe, that is no test? —You would find the gas if there were only 2J per cent, present. 62. If a man going through these mines, which are of varying heights, is not able to say the whole part which he surveys is clear of gas (because he is not able to test above his reach), there is no guarantee of safety to the men whom he allows to go into the area ?—He can only sayit is safe up to the height where he has tested. 63. Now, if men are working under such conditions they must be at times in terrible dnager, without the whole area being tested before they go in ?—That deepends upon the quantity of gas in the mine. 64. Supposing thej' have naked acetylene-lamps they must be working at times in great danger ?—lf the mine is a gassy mine. 65. This is a gassy mine—you know it is?— Now I do. 66. Well, in this mine they must have been working in terrible danger? —Sometimes. They must have been working in possible danger sometimes. 67. Have you found any evidence to indicate that the quantity of firedamp originating the recent explosion was only a small quantity ?—I do not think there is any clear evidence to show how much there was there; there must have been above a certain minimum. 68. Is it not likely, in view of recent discoveries, that the volume of fireamp in the Taupiri Mine was very considerable? —At that moment you mean —the moment of the explosion? There must have been a good many hundred cubic fe&t. 69. May I say a good many hundred thousand cubic feet?—l do not think there is any evidence of that. 70. There has been a great quantity of gas found since?— Yes. 71. Up to what quantity?—l cannot tell that because I have made no measurements of the quantity. 72. It would be very easy to calculate the quantity?—Y T ou could calculate the total quantity of air, but you could not, of course, determine the actual volume of firedamp. 73. Do you consider that any man should occupy an official position in a mine like the Taupiri Mine who has not passed a firedamp test by examination, now that you have seen the mine and know something of it? —I should say that he ought to be tested by some means or other —examination or otherwise. 74. How otherwise than by examination? By some one in authority who knows, appointed for the purpose, and who was fit for the purpose? —Obviously. 75. May I say this : that it is wrong, in your opinion, for any man to occupy an official position in a mine such as the Taupiri Mine who has not become thoroughly conversant with firedamp testing?— You may. Such an examiner should be conversant with firedamp testing. 76. You now agree that safety-lamps should be used in the Taupiri Mine?— Yes.
3—C. 14.
C—l 4.
18
[H. B. DIXON
77. Would you have ever considered the necessity of such a course being in doubt if you had previously known what you do now?— No. 78. Was your report in reference to the Taupiri Mine written without the knowledge that you now have?— Yes. I stated in the beginning of my evidence that my report was written in answer to certain specific questions put to me by the Minister of Mines. 79. And has that knowledge made you feel the necessity for giving evidence to show that what you now know modifies that report considerably, and in regard to safety-lamps nullifies it?— No. modifies that report. I should like to take this opportunity to say that that report would have been modified if I had known that considerable quantities of gas were issuing from the fall in No. 5 bord. My report was written in answer to a specific question as to whether it would be safe to continue working in similar mines until a supply of safety-lamps could be obtained. I said 1 would not stop such a mine provided two precautions were taken—a strict examination for gas, and that the dust should be rendered harmless. 80. You would never, however, have written that report if you had been seised of the conditions as you now know them?—l should not have written it in that way. 81. Should the owners of the Taupiri Mine in future be allowed to work those mines without safety-lamps ?—No. 82. Are you aware that the dust found in the Taupiri Mine is more highly explosive than is generally the case? —I am now. 83. Were you awere of that when you wrote that report to the Minister?— No. 84. Were you aware of it when you were interviewed by the New Zealand Herald reporter in Auckland before you had come to the mine at all?—I was not interviewed by the New Zealand Herald reporter in Auckland on the Huntly disaster. 85 Where were you first interviewed in regard to the Taupiri Mine, when you gave that information in regard to coaldust : in Wellington, was it?—l am sorry, but I do not remember. 86. You say that you now know that the dust found in the Taupiri Mine is more highly explosive than is generally the case : when did you find that out?— Last Sunday (27th September). <» 87. Do you consider that a dusty travelling-road in a mine of, say, 8 ft. in width, in which 2 ft. in the centre is watered, is a safe protection against danger, or merely a minimizing of it?— It would have no effect, I should judge. 88. Can you tell me what quantity of this highly explosive dust would cause an explosion?— Such a quantity that, being raised into the air as a cloud, would weigh about half an ounce per cubic foot of air. 89. Do you mean by that that a minimum explosion would be produced, or would it be an explosion of any magnitude?—No, that would propagate a violent explosion, if stirred up in the form of a cloud. 90. By a horse's hoof? —No. 91. How then?—lt must be a sudden violent concussion. 92. It would have to be a very powerful force?— Yes, and a sudden one, which would cause a concussion. 93. Do you consider that doors opening to old workings should be marked " Dangerous " for the safety of the men? —I am afraid my opinion would be useless on that point. 94. Do you know whether it is done at Home?—We have few old workings at Home that are open. 95. Do you know whether it is done at Home?—l do not know. 96. What would be an extra precaution to adopt?—To mark up "Dangerous" on a door where the men go through would be no precaution. 97. Should not all disused workings in which there might be possible accumulations of gas be guarded by notices of some kind ?—My own experience shows that merely marking with notices is not much good. Locking the doors would be more effective. 98. I understand that you came to your conclusion in regard to the highly explosive quality of this dust from analysis? —No, I actually tested it. 99. I think you went down the mine with Mr. Bennie, Inspector of Mines, the first time?— Yes. 100. On the 14th September ?—Yes. 101. The second time was last Tuesday, the 29th September?— Yes. 102. On the 14th September you went with Mr. Bennie and were down about three or four hours? —Something like that—l am not sure of the time. 103. Did you get any of the samples which you tested when you were with Mr. Bennie? —I got samples that day. lam not sure whether Mr. Bennie was present when I took them. 104. Do you tell me that you took any samples that day out of the mine?— Yes, I do. 105. I am talking about dust?—No, I thought you meant coal. 106. Where did you get your samples of dust which you tested? —The one I tested last week I got from the coal which I ground up. 107. But did you not get that piece of coal out of a coal-scuttle?— No. 108. Did you take a piece of coal in the hotel here?— Yes, I did. I have that. 109. Had you any samples for testing, except the piece you took out of the coal-scuttle, when you went to Wellington to the Royal Oak? Had you any samples in your possession from the Taupiri Mine except the " grab " sample which came from the coal-scuttle in the Huntly hotel, when you went to Wellington before you wrote that report to the Minister ?—I understand your question to be: had I any samples of coal out of the mine when I left here for Wellington, where I wrote that report. Yes, I had.
H. B. DIXON.]
19
C—l 4.
110. Where did you get them from?- —1 took it myself when in the mine. 111. Did not Mr. Bennie carry some boxes for samples and were they not brought back empty?—l do not know. 112. Was that coal-scuttle coal Taupiri coal?— Yes, 1 believe so. I was told so. 113. Who told you so?— Everybody sitting in the room. But you also wish to know what the coal was I tested in Wellington ? 114. Yes, please?— That was sent by the Minister of Mines. 115. Now, if you gave an interview at Auckland or Rotorua —supposing it can be found— it was prior to seeing the mine at all ?—Obviously. 116. And when you made the report to the Minister it was prior to your knowledge of the conditions of the mine, such as were discovered afterwards? —1 had been down the mine. 117. That report may be callecl, as far as this Commission is concerned, useless? —I do not think any particular stress may be laid on it. 118. You were not then in possession of the knowledge which you have now?— Certainly not. 119. You had not obtained your present knowledge then?—l think my knowledge is more valuable than it was then. 102. It would have been rather awkward if we had had to rely on your report and not on your evidence?—l said that this mine should be worked with safety-lamps. The whole question was whether similar mines should also be worked with safety-lamps. 121. You said in that report that until such lamps were procurable it would be safe to work with naked lights?— With the accompanying provisoes. 122. You made that report on inadequate knowledge?— Yes—incomplete knowledge. 123. Do you not think it was rash for a gentleman of your attainments?—No, I answered the questions to the best of my knowledge. 124. Your word goes a long way?—lt was printed wrongly. The provisoes were put as alternatives in the newspapers and that altered the sense completely. 125 : I am only judging by your statements that you wrote a report to the Minister without a knowledge of the subject?— That is false. I had a knowledge of the subject. 126. Did you have a proper knowledge of the conditions upon which you could write a report of any value?—l think the report was of value. I wrote it to the best of my belief and knowledge. 127. 1 ask you whether you would, in view of your present knowledge, change your report?— I have already stated that I would modify it, but not nullify it. 128. There was a British Royal Commission on Mines sitting in 1911? —It is still sitting. 129. You were not a member of that Commission, nor were you called by that Commission as a witness ?—No. 130. And there were over one thousand witnesses called? —Possibly. 131. Why were you not called, if you are the expert you have suggested?— The Royal Commission on Mines did not carry out its work on a large scale because the Government were not able to give them the necessary funds. The mine-owners supplied funds, and the experiments were started at Altofts, in Yorkshire. Afterwards the apparatus was handed over to the Government on condition that the Government would carry on the experiments. Then an expert on explosives, Captain Desborough, and myself and a mining engineer were appointed to join an executive committee of the Home Office to carry on those experiments. The Government asked me to work on these experiments, and I have done so for three years and a half. All our reports have been furnished to the Government and have been published. 132. You are a Professor of Chemistry? —Yes. 133. Have you any diplomas in mining?—No, not one. 134. Mr. Tunks.~\ Assuming that the ventilation in a mine was adequate, would it be possible for an accumulation of gas to exist in the roof and you to find no gas at the height that a man could test ?—lt depends upon the height of the cavity and the strength of the current. 135. You do not mean in the ordinary roof or bord; I am speaking of the ordinary roof or bord. If the ventilation is adequate would you expect to find a dangerous accumulation of gas above the heights a man could test? —No, I should not expect it in good ventilation. 136. Now, a cavity, I take it, generally exists as the result of a fall?— Yes. 137. The fall liberating same gas?—lt may do so. 138. Assuming that gas is found , in the cavity?— Yes. 139. That forms in the cavity first?— Yes. 140. And I take it that if the fall is sufficient in area to enable the man to reach it, he can then make a satisfactory test for gas?—lf he can reach up to the cavity, yes. 141. Would you say that an examination of old workings made by two men each carrying a safety-lamp might be an adequate examination?—l am speaking now as to the number of safety-lamps ?—Yes. 142. And if you found that where the test for gas was being made both men were present, so that the safety-lamp of one was in reserve in case the other's went out, would you suggest that there was any temptation—that there would be any temptation to make a poor test there I —No, not if there were two. 143. Now, the examination has been directed in regard to the testing for gas in the mine as a whole. I think you understand that in this mine the old workings and the working-places are differentiated?— Yes. 144. And the examination to which your attention has been mainly directed —that of Wear —was an examination of old workings; was not that so?— Yes. 145. You have seen nothing, I think, of the method of examination of the working-places in this mine?—No.
C—l 4.
20
|H. B. DIXON
146. And I take it that you express no opinion in regard to the examination of workingplaces in the mine? —I have expressed no opinion. 147. I take it that yon have no doubt that the ooaldust which you examined as to its explosibility was coaldust from the Taupiri Mine ?—lt was sent to the office of the Dominion Analyst by the Minister of Mines. That was the specimen we tested. The other small specimens 1 spoke about 1 took away myself, merely as specimens. I have the specimen here which I tested, if any one wishes to examine it. 148. And I think we may take it that the mere fact that there was a very large quantity of gas then in the mine, some days after the explosion, affords no guide as to the amount of gas that was present at the time of the explosion ?—No measure of it. 149. That would be particularly so where the ventilation had been interfered with by' the explosion ?—That is the reason of my answer. 150. I think, in addition to the violent and sudden explosion you have spoken of, in order to propagate an explosion there must be flame? —There must be flame. 151. So that the mere kicking up of dust by horses' hoofs would not be sufficient to create an explosion—there must be a concussion and an intense name. The main evidence of the explosion is to be seen in the main haulage-way, is it not? —So far as 1 have examined. 152. And the greatest force seems to have travelled through' the main haulage-way?—l think so. 153. Mr. Napier.~\ Supposing that gas existed near the roof, is there not a constant tendency for it to become diffused ?—Yes. 154. And assuming that the current of air was efficient the gas would not remain?— No. It would gradually come down, be diffused into the air, and be carried away, if there was no fresh supply. 155. And even if there was a continual small exudation of gas, provided the air was continuous also there would be a constant diffusion of the gas?— The firedamp will diffuse into the aif! 'It flows on the top, but it gradually conies down, and if there is a current it gets swept aw*ay; but that takes some time. 156. The method of cleansing or freeing the cavity from gas is, I presume, by the introduction of fresh air I —Yes. 157. Now, Wear has told us during the inquest proceedings, and it is suggested that he will state here, that they were constantly able to detect gas or foulness in the adjacent area : they had some premonition that gas would be there. What do you say to that? —Some people can sniff firedamp. 158. He has had some experience as an examine]', and would be likely to be able to detect it with perhaps a greater keenness than others? —I am not sure—l think I can detect it myself. I know other people who cannot, and then again some people are better than I am at it. 159. Is it customary, from your experience of mines at Home, for gas to be always reported by the deputies in England ?—Yes, I believe so. 160. You have heard the evidence which was given at the inquest with regard to the reporting of gas? —Yes, 161. In the books which were produced by the Inspector it was reported. Did you understand that gas to mean gas even when it was below the explosive standard, and that it is always reported whether 2 per cent., or 3, or more?—So long as it can be detected gas should be reported. 1 understand that is done. 162. Mr. Wilford put a question to you as to whether the test could be efficient without the use of a ladder. Is a ladder at all necessary if a man can reach the place where the gas is likely to be?—lf he is certain where it is and can reach it a ladder would not be necessary. 163. Then the question of a ladder or no ladder really only becomes relevant if the place where the gas is supposed to be, or is likely to be, is out of his reach? —Clearly. 164. What is the height of the passage-ways which you examined yourself?—l am afraid I cannot answer that correctly —they vary so much. 165. Say 7 ft. then ?—Many were higher and many lower. 166. The place where your lamp went out was at the fall?— Yes, the fall in No. 5. 167. And do I understand you to say that you went up 5 ft. on the debris which had fallen from the roof?— About 5 ft., yes. 168. Now, assuming there were falls, could not an efficient test be made by a man without a ladder by ascending the debris from the fall, provided he could reach sufficiently close to the roof of the cavity? —At that place, yes. 169. With regard to this alleged interview, have you ever seen a New Zealand Herald containing a report which purported to be an interview with yourself on this matter?—l am sorry, but I cannot say —I have been interviewed here so often,, but I have no recollection of seeing it. 170. Mr. Benuie.] You said, I think, that your report to the Minister was written in answer to certain specific questions; that you had visited the mine before writing the report, but when writing the report you were not aware' that larg<? quantities of gas had been found in the mine. Do you mean that since then you have become aware of the discovery of gas in the mine? Yes. When I wrote my report I was not aware of gas being found in large quantities, in the mine. 171. You had no knowledge then that there had been a large quantity found? No, I had no ; knowledge. 172=. Your knowledge that large quantities of gas had been found in the mine was obtained since the explosion?— Certainly since and not before the explosion. 173. That is the meaning of your reference to it in your remarks? Yes.
H. B. DIXON.]
21
C—l 4.
174. Mr. Dowgray.] Is it not a fact that the coaldust theory has been engaging the minds of mining men for a considerable number of years?— Yes, in England certainly, 175. And also in America; the American professors have been studying the matter almost to the same extent as those in England I —Yes, they are testing on a large scale—more elaborate perhaps than ours. 176. You stated that on your first view of this mine, so far as the dust was concerned you did not consider it dangerous ?—What I meant to convey was that it would not be described in and ordinary parlance as a dry and dusty mine. 177. But after making the test, what is your opinion now: do you consider the mine a dangerous one by reason of the character and amount of dust there'!—l now consider it a dangerous mine as far as the dust is concerned. I did not analyse the dust itself—l only tested it for its inflammability. May I add, about the specimen which 1 tested, that it was sent to the Dominion Analyst by the Minister of Mines. 178. Do you think it was part of the duty of the manager of the minej which is certainly dusty, to analyse the dust? —Analyses had been made and published by the Dominion Analyst of the dust of the Taupiri Mine, and 1 imagine any one reading that analysis would not be drawn to consider it was a very dangerous mine, for the dust contains over 12 per cent, of water. 179. Would you consider a mine like this, where, when men bored holes to fire their shots, gas was given off and could be lit up, to be a gassy mine?—l have not understood that gas has been found in a borehole —a shot-hole. 180. Yes, in a shot-hole bored to hre a charge gas was found?— Yes, 1 should call that a gassy mine. 181. You would not consider that a mine where naked lights should be used? —Unless the finding of the gas was quite an exceptional circumstance. 182. If gas were found in ordinary shot-holes, say, two or three times in three months?—l should certainly forbid the use of naked lights. - 18J3. Did you go through the place in the stone drive to the main haulage-way —to Dooley's dip ? —I do not remember the name ; I do not think so. 184. You certainly visited the fall referred to?— Yes. 185. There was gas making from there?— Yes. 186. There was an extraordinary amount of gas there?— Yes. there is certainly gas in the roof; it is now coming out. 187. So it must have come out of, the strata ?—Yes. 188. One counsel said that if 'there was satisfactory ventilation it would take away the gas. Do you think that method of ventilation would keep the workings entirely free from gas —bords worked up to 20 ft. and over ? —1 thirds; the explosion has proved that the ventilation could not have been adequate for such a system. 189. One of the counsel questioned you as to whether a deputy could examine for gas without a ladder if he knew where it was to be expected : is it not a fact that a deputy presupposes gas exists all over, and examines accordingly?— That I understand is the ordinary practice in a mine —that the deputy examines all along the roadways, goes into the working-places, and examines carefully. 190. Mr. Brown.] Do you think it is a necessary precaution for deputies to be examined to test their eyesight before they are appointed to the position?—l think they ought to be tested to determine whether they can see and recognize a cap on the lamp-flame. 191. Has it been brought under your notice in Great Britain that a large percentage of these men cannot see a cap I —l think a large percentage cannot see a small cap—a cap you would get with anything less than 2 per cent, of firedamp. 192. Were there not a number of men tested in Scotland last year who failed to see a cap showing 2J, per cent. ?—I do not know of my personal knowledge. 193. Do you think that all examining deputies should have their eyesight tested in that respect—for gas-testing ?—Yes. 194. Is inert dust used largely in Great Britain?—lt is used in some large mines; I think about twelve mines are now using it. 195. Was it a recommendation of the Mines Commission to the Government?— Not by the Mines Commission that I know of. It is a recommendation of the Executive Committee, who are reporting separately to the Government. 196. Now, in regard to breathing-apparatus : I think you stated in your evidence that all mines should have this apparatus for use, and men trained in its use?— What I said was that life-saving apparatus should always be within reach. 197. Does it not require a great deal of training to make these men competent?—lt takes some time. 198. Would it not be positively dangerous for men inexperienced in the use of such apparatus to go underground with it where noxious gases existed?— Yes. 199. Assuming that there were no mines with these noxious gases present, how would you train the men?—ln England we have small galleries made for the purpose, and the men have to go through them, and they are watched through glass doors. 200. And in many cases do these men not collapse in these galleries?—l have known a man to collapse at one of the trials. 201. Do you think it is the duty of a company to provide these galleries?—l think there should be one such station in New Zealand. 202. Just so?— Some central station where miners might be trained. 203. Would Ralph's Mine have been considered in Great Britain to be a dry and dusty mine? —I think not, although portions are dry and dusty. 204. But, generally speaking, it would not have been considered dry and dusty?—l think not.
C—l 4.
22
[H. B. DIXON.
205. Now, as to the future use of explosives, wliat class of explosives would you consider necessary for safety % —lf I am to speak unofficially and not as representing the Home Office at all, I should say there are several explosives which can be used with, at all events, comparative safety, for all safety in mines is comparative only—we shall never totally eliminate accidents. I think comparative safety would be assured with several explosives, even not on the permitted list, but, of course, blasting-powder is another matter. 206. It is not a permitted explosive?— No. 207. Do you think that monobel should be used in gassy mines'/—lt would be far safer than blasting-powder, but it has not passed the English test. It is possible to get a flame from it and to ignite gas or dust. 208. Is it not probable?—No, not probable, I think, under the working-conditions of a mine. 209. What percentage of gas do you consider to be dangerous in the return airway in a gassy mine?—l should think that anything over 1 or 1£ per cent, would indicate that more ventilation was required. 210. In some mines in Great Britain is there not much more than that in the return air, where the mine is well ventilated?—l have seen more. 211. Can you tell the Commission what Dr. Haldane considered was a reasonable percentage? —Did not he put it at 2| per cent. ? 212. I know he said that above 2Jr per cent, would be dangerous?— Yes, of course; but I think he has put some figure as a suggestion for the return airways—l forget the exact figure. 213. In connection with the watering of mines, what is the principal objection in some mines to general watering ?—lt is that it is liable to result in the roof cracking and coming down through the moisture being absorbed. Professok Dixcxn, recalled. 214. The Chairman.] 1* understand, Professor Dixon, that you have an explanation you wish .ty,inake in reference to the reported interview referred to this morning? —Yes, sir, 1 had to acquit this morning that I had not seen the report of the interview with me, to which counsel referred. I have now obtained a copy of it. I find it refers to an interview which a representative of the New Zealand Herald had with me when I was changing my clothes after returning from the pit on the 14th September. There is one mistake m the report which I should like to correct. It states '' The Professor was then asked if it were likely that a fall from the roof would release gas in sufficient quantity, if it became ignited, to create a flame big enough to fire the coaldust. He said that he did not think so." 1 did not make that statement. The question as 1 understood it was : Is it likely that a fall of roof with some gas would strike sparks and so produce an ignition? and I said I thought that was not likely. 215. Mr. Wilford.] Then I can add to your evidence that not only is the report not your opinion, but- the interview you now produce is not your opinion either? —I have already told the Commission that the report 1 made to the Minister is my opinion, and only requires to be modified. That paragraph in the report of the interview is not my opinion. There is also one other correction I wish to make. The interview goes on, " Referring to the mine the scientist said that, while he would not describe it as a dry and dusty mine. . . ." 1 have said before the Commission that it would not ordinarily be described as a dry and dusty mine, and that is what 1 said in the interview. 216. Instead of the words " I would not describe it as a dry and dusty mine " I —Yes. 217. May I ask you while you are in the box, Professor Dixon, to give me a little assistance on a couple of points in that connection. A blown-out shot is one of the things which could cause an explosion with dust or gas ?—Yes. 218. I suppose, because a blown-out shot gives both concussion and flame?—-Yes, a blown-out shot with such a thing as blasting-powder. 219. I understand that such explosives as monobel No. 1 would give no flame?—l am not sure that it gives no flame, but it does not ignite dust under the Home Office test. 220. Then should there not be precautions taken in regard to blown-out shots—for instance, watering round the area ?—lf there is dust about. 221. How would you put that water on so as to make it effective, as a counter-irritant? —I should put such water on with a spray. There is an instrument called an " atomizer " which blows the water into a very fine spray. 222. You think the area round where the blown-out shot occurs should be watered—preferably sprayed?—l think that should be done round all shots where the place is dusty; you cannot tell whether the shot is going to be blown out or not. 223. Round all shots?— Yes, if it is dusty. 224. Because any blown-out shot might cause an explosion ?—Y'es, if there is inflammable gas or dust. 225. If there is dust in this mine or gas, and there is a possibility of a blown-out shot, you would spray the area round where you are going to fire your , shot? —Yes, if there is dust near the shot. 226. Mr. Napier.] Should not the spraying be done immediately before the shot is fired? —Yes. 227. You are aware that there were no shots fired on the morning of the disaster? —Yes, that is in evidence. 228. Mr. Tunks.] Is it only monobel with a numeral that is entirely safe? —I think it is only inonobel with a numeral which has passed the Home Office test. 229. It does not follow that the other monobel, without the numeral, is necessarily dangerous? —No, I am speaking of comparative safety in all these answers. 230. The Chairman.] You say there is no such thing as absolute safety?—l believe there is no such thing as absolute safety. 231. Mr. Wilford.] But it is clear that only monobel with the numeral has passed the Home Office test—the other has not done so ?—That is so, I believe.
23
O—l4.
H. B. DIXON.
Professor Dixon recalled. 232. Mr. Napier.] Do you produce a bottle containing coaldust portion of which you tested in Wellington, and which you have referred to in your evidence? —Yes, this bottle contains coaldust a portion of which Dr. Maclaurin and I tested in Wellington. 233. There is an inscription on this bottle, " Taupiri Coal, Ralph's Mine, Mr. Reed's sample " : can you say whose handwriting that is?— Dr. Maclaurin's. 234. He is the Dominion Analyst at Wellington?— Yes. [Bottle put in—Exhibit No. I.] 235. And you received that from Dr. Maclaurin's Department?—We opened one of the boxes containing coal from this mine and ground it up. We made certain tests of the dust, and this is a portion of the same material. This was solid coal which we ground up. 236. Do you remember the Sengennydd disaster in South Wales? —Yes, I remember it. 237. That accident was attended, I believe, with terrible loss of life2 —Yes, I think the greatest loss of life in any British explosion in a coal-mine. 238. How long is it since that happened?— About a year ago. 239. Was that mine watered? —Yes, water was being used. 240. I think the coal in that mine is a bituminous coal? —Yes. 241. And much less inflammable than the Taupiri coal from Ralph's Mine? —Yes, it is less easy to ignite it. 242. Would that coal be one of the best as far as non-inflammability of the dust is concerned? —I cannot speak positively on that. 243. Do you know if there was an inquiry into the cause of that disaster? —There was a Home Office (Government) inquiry. 244. Do you know what the report stated the principal cause of the disaster to have been? — Yes; it was stated that the probable cause was an ignition of firedamp that had come down, probably with a fall, and that the firedamp had been carried along an intake road and was then tired, the firing of that body of firedamp then producing the dust-explosion. ".'IS. The dust being gathered up by the ignited gas?— The explosion of the air and gas causing an intense flame, and the concussion stirring up the dust, the cloud of dust was fired and propagated the explosion through the workings. 246. And was it discovered how the gas was ignited? —The only way it appeared to be probable for the gas to have been ignited was by an electric spark from signalling-wires. It was found that the bell employed used with a similar current to that used in the mine gave a spark sufficient to fire firedamp and-air. 247. The mine, of course, had been duly inspected by the Government officers? —I presume so. 248. Do you know what the report says?—l do not know of my own knowledge. 249. As far as the report came out? —I cannot say. Nothing was said as to any negligence on that point. 250. Mr. Wilford.] I understood you to say yesterday that the sample of dust you examined was the one sent by the Minister of Mines? —I meant to say by the "Ministry" of mines. Perhaps I should have said " Mines Department." 251. Why did you say yesterday that the sample was sent by the Minister? —Because I thought it had been sent by or through the Minister. 252. What did you base that opinion upon, any foundation or none at all? —Yes, because Dr. Maclaurin said he had got it through the Minister of Mines, but whether he said " Minister of Mines " or " Department of Mines " I cannot remember. 253. I think you said you helped Dr. Maclaurin in the test of the dust? —Yes, we did it together. 254. What became of the " grabbed " sample you took out of the coal-scuttle in the hotel here? —I do not remember. 255. I think you said you could produce it? —No, I was referring to the two small pieces I brought out of the mine. 256. Did that get into Dr. Maclaurin's possession?—l do not know. 257. What became of the sample of coal which you took from the coal-scuttle in the hotel here? —I believe it is there, inside or outside the hotel. 258. Did you take it to Wellington? —I do not think so. 259. Could you not be sure whether it was thrown outside or taken to Wellington? It was too big for me to carry with my luggage. 260. Did you make any test of it at all? —No. 261. You told us that you were informed that it was Taupiri coal? —Yes, I was. 262. You, of course, know that there are many samples of Taupiri coal differing as far as their inflammability is concerned?— Possibly. I do not know that of my own knowledge. 263. Do you know that there are any differences in them?— No. 264. And it was only from information given to you in Huntly that you came to the conclusion that it was Taupiri coal?—I said I should like to have a sample of this coal to take Home, and I believe somebody in the room said that that was Taupiri coal in the scuttle. 265. Now, you know probably all about a Commission which presented its report in regard to the Camerton Colliery disaster in 1893. It was a Royal Commission. I have here a text-book by H. R. Hughes, published in 1904, and on page 435 I find this quotation from the report of that Commission: "We have no hesitation in expressing our opinion that a blown-out shot may under certain conditions set up a most dangerous explosion in a mine even when firedamp is not present at all, or only in infinitesimal quantities; and while we are prepared to admit that the danger of a coaldust-explosion varies greatly according to the composition of the dust,
C—l 4.
24
[H. B. DIXON.
we are unable to say that any mine is absolutely safe in this respect, or that its owners can properly be absolved from taking reasonable precautions against a possible explosion from this cause. But even if we had been able to come to a different conclusion, we should still have to call attention to the serious danger which results from the action of coaldust in carrying on and extending an explosion which may have originally been set up by the ignition of firedamp "1 —That quotation is, I believe, correct. I was a member of the Commission which wrote it. 266. You accept that as really part of the finding of the Commission on the evidence : you adhere to that?— Yes. 267. Now, I think you used these wor-ds in giving your evidence before the Coroner's inquest proceedings : "I think very few managers would have recognized that dust existed in this mine in dangerous quantity, and unless they had been interested in the dust question, and made experiments on it, I do not think they would have been aware of the dangerous character of lignite-coal dust " : do you still subscribe to that? —Yes. 268. You remember admitting to the Commissioners that every blown-out shot in this mine might have caused a disaster if the dust was present in sufficient quantity? I think you admitted that to me also? —I meant, of course, every blown-out shot in a place that was dry and dusty. If that was the question I should say " Yes " to it now, as I did then. 269. Is it not a reasonable practice for examiners, particularly in view of the dangerous properties of all coaldust, and particularly when mixed with carburetted hydrogen below detec-tion-point, to assume that there is gas in dangerous proportions in the mine? What I mean is, should they not rather assume that there is gas there (and therefore test very keenly for it) instead of assuming that it is not there?— They certainly should start off with the belief that there possibly is gas there. 270. And they should practically assume in their examination that gas will be found? Is not that the line upon which the examiners should go?—I cannot understand that question. A man should, of course, look for it, and if it is there he should find it and report it, without assuming anything at all. y 271. You, of course, are giving your evidence with regard to this with a clear memory as to the whole of the circumstances. Now I want to know whether it is not a fact that that sample was received by Dr. Maclaurin four days after you sent in your report to the Minister? —I do not know in the least when he received it. 272. Had not you written your report to the Minister before that sample was in Dr. Maclaurin's hands? —I do not know. I have no means of judging. You can easily tell —my report was dated the 15th September. 273. Now r , if that sample was taken on the 18th September, then you had written your report to the Minister four days before you examined that sample?—l did not test the sample until the 28th September. 274. What samples had j r ou examined when you wrote your report? —I had not examined any samples. 275. When you wrote that report you had tested no samples?—l had examined no samples. 276. Your report to the Minister was in reply to the Minister's letter, containing certain questions? —Before I examined these samples. 277. Then your report to the Minister was written without your having examined any samples from the mine whatever?— Without my having tested samples from the mine; but I had seen the dust in the mine. 278. You are quite positive on that point? —Absolutely certain. 279. Then the interview which appeared in the Herald and the report to the Minister were both given without any samples from the mine? —Without having tested any samples. 280. Where are the questions the Minister asked you? —They were verbal questions he asked me. 281. Is there no record of record of all of them —he wrote me a letter. 282. Have you got it? —It exists. 283. May I see it?— Yes, if it is here at Huntly; I do not know whether it is here or at Auckland, but I will see. 284. The Chairman.] Does this bottle contain some coal you made a test from? —That is part of the same sample which I tested. 285. It is taken from a lump of Taupiri coal?— Yes. 286. Was that a fair test of the dust that lies in the mine which you say is highly inflammable? Would the coaldust in the mine be equally inflammable with that powdered coal? — Probably not so inflammable, but in making tests we have always employed freshly ground coal, so that each coal might be tested under the same conditions. If we took the dust in the mine for testing purposes there might be more foreign matter in one sample than in another, and therefore the comparison might not be a fair one. 287. Did you make any test of the dust as it lies in the mine? —No, I only examined it to see whether there was fine dust present. 288. You could not say whether that dust in the mine is as highly inflammable as the sample of powdered coal which you examined? —Probably not. I think it gradually alters by the action of the air. 289. Mr. Dowgray'.j In connection with that disaster you quoted, you said that watering was carried out in that mine? —Yes, some watering was done. 290. You said it came out that the explosion had occurred by firedamp and it had travelled along the intake airways? —The finding was that the outburst occurred in an intake airway and the gas was carried inwards.
H. B. DIXON.]
25
C—l 4.
291. It is not customary to water the intake airways: the watering theory would not have anything to do with it?— This was in the intake. There was some watering at Sengennydd, but it appeared not to be sufficient to prevent dust being ignited. 292. Mr. Napier.'] Mr. Wilford quoted from this text-book at page 435 (Hughes), and you subscribed to this extract indicating what the Commission thought. Just over the page, however (page 436), the following paragraph occurs : " Action of moisture : It is now established that the presence of moisture effectually prevents the possibility of coaldust being ignited, and that, unfortunately, only the very smallest amounts are needed. It has consequently become the practice at many collieries where the coal is dry and dusty to water the main roadways regularly. In order to be efficient the water should be applied in such quantities as will simply damp the dust and prevent clouds of it being raised by any means. If the floor be properly watered it is sufficient to prevent any deposit of dust on the sides or the roof." Do you agree with that? — That is not "part of our Commission's finding. I think }'ou are now quoting the opinion of the writer of the book. Damping the surface of the roads is not sufficient. The experimental explosions at Eskmeals have shown that mere damping is not sufficient. 293. Mr. Brown.] In practice, .in Great Britain, when watering is done, the sides, roof, and floor are thoroughly watered? —They ought to be. 294. Does that necessarily apply to the whole of the intake airway or only to the watered zones?—lt does not apply to the watered nones only. I think there is a danger in having a mere zone protected, for we know that in an explosion the burning dust may be carried through a dust-free zone for some considerable distance, over 100 yards. My opinion is that zone-watering is not nearly so good as universal watering. 295. Mr. Dowgray .] There is a clause in the British Coal-mines Act dealing with coaldust: will you read it, please?—l think one of these clauses is.very important. "No. 62. Prevention of Coaldust. —In every mine, unless the floor, roof, and sides of the roads are naturally wet throughout —(1) Arrangements shall be made to prevent as far as practicable coaldust from the the downcast shaft; and in the case of a mine newly opened after the passing of this Act no plant for the screening or sorting of coal shall be situated within a distance of eighty yards from any downcast shaft unless a written exemption is given by the Inspector of the division : (2) the tubs shall be so constructed and maintained so as to prevent as far as practicable coaldust escaping through the sides, ends, or floor of the tubs, but any tub which was in use in any mine at the date of the passing of this Act may, notwithstanding that it is not so constructed, continue to be used in that mine for a period of five years from the said date : (3) the floor, roof, and sides of the roads shall be systematically cleared so as to prevent as far as practicable coaldust accumulating : (4) such sj-stematic steps, either by way of watering or otherwise, as may be laid down by the regulations of the mine shall be taken to prevent explosions of coaldust occurring or being carried along the roads : (5) the roads shall be examined daily, and a report (to be recorded in a book kept at the mine for that purpose) made on their condition as to coaldust and on the steps taken to mitigate danger therefrom." 296. You think that is a model clause in connection with coaldust? —I think the clauses are good. -Of course, their efficiency depends upon the rules for carrying them out. The Home Office Committee has reported that in their opinion such a systematic step as is contemplated in clause 4, in lieu of water-ing, would be taken if the roads were treated with inert dust in such a way that the mixture of fine dust that could be easily raised into a cloud should always contain more than half its weight of incombustible matter.
David Moleswobth, Sen., Miner, sworn and examined. (No. 2.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] For how long have you been mining, Mr. Molesworth? —I have worked for this company for thirty-two years. 2. Do you know this mine pretty well? —I do. 3. When were you last working there, in the mine?— About two years ago, some time after Mr. Fletcher came. I have been at the top since then. 4. I want to ask you whether your memory can carry you back to the longest distance from now when to your knowledge gas was known to exist in the mine?— Well, sir, I believe that the first time I saw it was about twelve or fourteen years ago. I can tell you exactly the place where it was found. It was at the time they were sinking what it called the little dip—l mean the little dip proper. I was examining the places for a cavil. 5. Who was in charge at the time you refer to?— Mr. William Dunn. 6. Now, in your own words, tell us what you saw?— Well, in the little dip two men were working named Tom O'Loughlin and Gus Rosenbank. Mr. Dunn got his lamp and we were looking at the roof, when we came to a borehole overhead. It went off and burnt out for a few seconds. After that I noticed that it lit up again every time you put your lamp near it. 7. It was bleeding?—lt must have been. 8. Now, since then, I want you to tell us any other occasions when you have seen gas bleeding from boreholes? —Well, in the same region I have seen it after that in various parts of the mine. 9. You have been on top for about two years and a half? —Yes. 10. When you were working down below, was there much dust about at any time?— Yes, and there has been some lots of dusty stuff coming up since I have been on top, and more especially in the last month —just as if some one had been sweeping it to get rid of it. 11. How recently?— Well, the first time that I saw anything that indicated trouble to my mind was about twelve months ago, just before the strike. For a considerable time there was a lot of bad stuff coming through the screens,
4—C. 14.
C—l 4.
26
[D. MOLESWORTH.
12. What sort of stuff? —Such as would come from old workings—that is, dust and coal and stone all mixed together —and some of it was smoking hot. That was about twelve months ago. 13. Where was that coming from? —I could not tell you what part of the mine, but I said to my mate that wherever it came from there was trouble. 14. Did it come right up?— Yes. 15. Was it still hot when-it reached you? —Yes, I remember one day 1 picked up a lump and handed it to Clout, and it was so hot that he dropped it. 16. Who is Clout?— The man in charge on the top; he is considered my boss —the man in charge. 17. You passed this bit of hot stuff over to him and he dropped it?— Yes. 18. Was there any quantity of it coming from the mine, or did it just come up now and then 1 —No, there would be half skips and whole skips of it; then sometimes there would be dozens of skips full. 19. In how long?—ln about an hour. 20. Did this come along on one day, or on several successive days?—On different days. 21. From that time you thought of the possibility of trouble?— Yes, I knew from that that there must be fire somewhere. 22. Did you ever come across any hot spots before you came up on top?—No, I never saw any hot spots in the mine before I came up. 23. Did you ever see watering done? —No, there was no watering done while I was down the mine. 24. The watering is of recent date? —Yes, very recent. 25. Mr. Tunks.] Can you say, Mr. Molesworth, roughly, how many times you have seen gas in the mine ?—No, I cannot saj r how many times. 26. Have you seen it ten times?— Yes, I should say so. Wβ had to put in boreholes every now-and then. That was how we discovered the gas, when we were trying our roof. The gas burned till it was all burned away. 27. What were those boreholes put up there for? —To see how much coal there was over our heads. 28. Did you ever, see gas come out of a shot-hole?—No, not in my time. 29. You say you have put up many of these boreholes yourself?— Yes, I should say I had in my thirty years below. We had to put them up every 6 ft. or thereabouts. 30. But you did not get eras in them all? —No. 31. Did you get gas in those places where you broke through into the roof?—ln many instances I never pricked the roof at all. Where there was only 3 ft. or 4 ft. of coal over our heads it was usual to bore 9 ft. and if we got no roof there it was considered all right, and that there was quite enough coal. 32. What was done with that particular one which you saw with Mr. Dunn ? —Nothing. 33. And nothing happened?— No. 34. You say that gas was found every time you tried it?— Yes. 35. How often did you try it?— Not very often —two or three times. 36. The same day?—No, at different times. 37. Had you any idea where that heated stuff was coming from? —No, I did not know where it came from. 38. You did not know whether it came from the old workings or not?—l do not know, but I should think it must have come from the old workings. 39. It was probably from a heated place that was being cleared out? —Yes. 40. So that the proper precaution was being taken with it?— Very likely. 41. Have you since had some heated stuff?— Only last month—very similar, but rather more cindery. 42. Also from old workings?— Yes, probably. 43. The Chairman, ,] In regard to the gas you say you discovered twelve or fourteen years ago, was that all exhausted in the one day?— Yes, it only lasted six or seven seconds. 44. Did you visit that borehole Again after that date?— Yes. 45. Was there any gas in it then? —Yes, it was just the same. 46. How often did you see it?— About three or four times. 47. Did you report it at the time? —I did not need to do so because the deputy was with me. 48. It was his duty to do so ? —Yes. 49. And on the several other occasions you speak of, did you get gas in the same quantity? — Yes, to the same extent. 50. Supposing you had not been working there, was there any way by means of which it would have been discovered? Would any one else have found it there? —Yes, the deputy. 51. Was it not too high?—He could have got up my ladcier. 52. You had a ladder? —Yes. 53. You did not know what part of the mine that hot coal and stuff came from?—No, sir. That has been lying there for some considerable time before I left the workings down below. 54. You cannot say what part of the mine it came from ? —No, the only thing I can say about it is that it was necessary that it should be got out or that something should be done in regard to it. 55. And in bringing it up to the surf nee the employees might have been doing the proper thing with it?— Yes. 56. You would not argue that there was any neglect?—No, not at all.
B. BENNIE.j
27
C—l 4.
Boyd Bennie, inspector of Mines, sworn and examined. (No. 3.) I. The Chairman.] I will first ask you, Mr. Bennie, to read your evidence given before the Coroner at the inquest proceedings?—[Witness reads evidence as follows.] "Boyd Bennie, sworn, saith: I am Inspector of Mines for the Auckland District—Coalmining District—and the Hauraki Gold-mining District, including Puhipuhi. I propose to give evidence to show when I first became aware that these mines were liable to give off gas. About six or seven years ago, when Mr. Wight was manager here, I ignited a small quantity of gas in a borehole. These boreholes are put up in the roof of the working-places to ascertain if there is a thickness of coal sufficient left all over the bord or places. Nothing further occurred until the 12th February, 1912, when David Conn, a shiftman in the Extended Mine, got burnt with gas and was idle fourteen working-days. William Willcox, a roadman in the Extended Mine, was also burnt with gas on the 26th March, 1912. Arthur Ruston, in Ralph's Mine, going into the old workings in Dooley's dip, got burnt with firedamp, but escaped injury. This would be between 1912 and early in 1914. On the 9th July, 1914, William Kelly got burnt by gas in Ralph's Mine on the arms, neck, and face, and w r as off work for fourteen working-days. This was in the stone drive between No. 6 and No. 7 levels on the main haulage-road. Mr. Fletcher reported the occurrence to me. I put in a copy of the letter reporting it [Exhibit T]. [Copy of letter from Mr, Fletcher to Mr. Binnie in reply to Exhibit X put in as Exhibit U.] I put in a copy of memorandum left in the mine-manager's report-book by me on the 2nd July, 1914 [Exhibit VI. On the 14th July, 1914, I visited the mine and inspected the place where Kelly was burnt. The mine-manager was present with me, and we found a little gas over the back of the drive. The cavity was very small and the quantity was small. On the 24th July, 1914, I reported to the Mines Department the result of my investigation of the place where Kelly was burnt. 1 was instructed by the Under-Secretary for Mines to take legal advice and see if I could enforce the use of safety-lamps in the mine and prosecute the manager for a breach of Special Rule 14, Second Schedule of the Coal-mines Act, 1908. I put in a copy of my letter to Millejr and Son, Thames [Exhibit W]. [Their reply put in and marked X.] In consequence of the finding of gas in the mine as reported by the examining deputies I have made a number of visits to Ralph's Mine, and made special examination of the places where gas was reported to be found. On the 14th July, 1914, I found a little gas where Kelly was burnt, at No. 7 at the middle of the stone drive. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gowans were with me. We found in a bord in the old workings, No. 7 level south, about 100 cubic feet of gas there. On same day we examined the place in the old workings where the gas was reported to have been found at a fall. I could not find a trace of gas there. In two places where there were falls from the roof the examining deputy reported discovering gas in April, 1914. We could not find a trace of gas there. On my visit of inspection on the 21st August with the manager I inspected the stone drive between No. 6 and No. 7 levels where Kelly was burnt. We found traces of gas over the drive-timbers : the quantity was very small. No. 7 south, behind a little winch in the old workings, was searched for gas, but I could not find a trace of gas. It had been reported by the examining deputy that he had found gas there. I made a two-days inspection of the mine and found the conditions generally satisfactory with the exception of what appeared to me to be an excessive quantity of coaldust. This was on the 21st and 22nd August, 1914. I found the mine satisfactory except that the travelling-road in No. 6 to Taupiri West had and was being watered only on the floor half the width where the men would walk. There was dust along the sides of the travelling-roads. I cannot find a note of such a letter, but I have no doubt I discussed it with the manager. The watering was continued, but not to the full width of the road. I did not give any instructions about watering the sides or roof, as I could not say there was any dust on the walls at all. Prior to receiving the legal opinion I was so impressed with the necessity of something being done in consequence of the accident to Kelly that I wrote the letter [Exhibit V] to Mr. Fletcher. [Mr. Fletcher's reply is put in and marked Exhibit V.] "By Inspector Wright: I have known this mine for nine years and have been inspecting it for that time. I inspected it usually three or four times a year, but this year 1 have inspected seven times, all prior to the explosion. This was because gas had been found in the old workings. Prior to 1914 gas was found, but not so frequently. It is the duty of every one in the mine to report anything in the shape of gas. During the last two years I have had no complaints from any one employed in the mine either as to gas or anything else wrong in the mine. I have not found gas in the working-places or travelling-roads in such quantities as would, in my opinion, render the use of safety-lamps compulsory. I have never at any time advised the management that safety-lamps should be used in the mine instead of naked lights. I considered I was writing to an intelligent and competent man, and I drew his attention to the matters which I considered dangerous. The only thing that was not carried out as I should have liked was the watering of the travelling-roads, which were not watered at the sides. Prior to Mr. Fletcher's arrival the old workings were not inspected as they are now. As a result of our conversation for more adequate inspection two men were appointed to examine the old workings to guard against spontaneous combustion and also against accumulation of gas. The instances of gas exploding in the mine that I have given are the only ones known to me. In addition to the inconvenience of the coaldust I also considered it a danger. After hearing the evidence of Professor Dixon lam now of opinion that it is absolutely necessary to use safety-lamps. I have now informed the managers of both mines that only safety-lamps must be used in the mine, and ' permitted ' explosives according to the British Schedule No. 953 must be used only. There is no doubt that on my inspection on the 21st August I informed the manager that the roads were insufficiently watered. I cannot say positively that we did discuss it. There is no letter on the file and no note in my book of my having called Mr. Fletcher's attention to this matter. I agree with the opinion expressed by Mr. Wood as to the place where the explosion first started. The place where
28
[B. BENNIE.
o—l4.
Martin's body was found would be about 10 ft. lower than the highest portion of the drive. I believe just inside the door was the highest point of that portion of the section where the body was found. "By Mr. Napier: Up to this occurrence I considered this mine to be a safe mine to work, with the exception of the finding of the small quantities of gas that were found and the coaldust, " Q. In your letter of the 25th August you state that in the event of a certain contingency happening in the future it may be necessary to insist on the use of safety-lamps : had that contingency happened prior to the accident? — A. : No. " By Mr. 'funks : My letter of the 30th May was written after an inspection made by me in company with the check inspectors. " By jury : There are not many large falls in the old workings. " Q. Do you consider it a safe system to allow the old workings to fall in and allcw the falls to remain there? — A. Sometimes the debris has been on fire when turned over to allow the gases to escape. Fires will not recur there. I am aware that the four old mines in or about Huntly have been on fire. As soon as there were signs of heating the falls should be removed. Unless the heap is more than 3 ft. deep it rarely catches fire. I think where any special danger is noted on the visit of the examining officer to the old workings that they should be visited oftener than once a week. "By Mr. Tunks: I was aware of the system of examining the old workings. It took a week to go round. "By Coroner: I am satisfied that the ventilation of the old workings was sufficient, but there may have been odd corners in which the air may have been a little warm. That is sufficient to clear away any ordinary accumulation of gas. In addition to the return air there are 7,000 cubic feet of air per minute going into'the old workings in the old dip." 2. Mr. Wilford.~\ Of course you realize, Mr. Beimie, in a Commission of this kind that if there is default on the part of the management of the mine it is equally your fault?—l am not award*of 'that. 3. You realize that you are an overseer?—No, I am the Government Inspector of Mines, whose duty it is to see that the work is carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Coalmines Act and Eegulations. 4. Is not the Government Inspector of Mines an overseer? —No. 5. He has to oversee? —That is splitting straws. 6. You have to oversee the mine and give directions if you think something requires remedjing?—On my examination of the mine, if anything is contrary to the provisions of the Coal-mines Act and Regulations, then I draw the manager's attention to it or ask permission to summon him. 7. If you find anything out of order? —No, sir, I cannot have that: unless contrary to the provisions of the Act and Regulations. 8. Now, I have a few questions I want to ask j-ou, and I want you to think carefully before you reply, because they are very important. Have you reported all ignitions of gas by which persons received damage, to the Inspector?—To whom? 9. Whom do you report to? —Any serious accident is reported to the Under-Secretary. 10. I will modify my question : have you reported all ignitions of gas by which persons received burns immediately in writing to the Under-Secretary of Mines? —The Coal-mines Act requires that in cases of serious accident the mine-manager shall notify the Inspector, and the Minister, and the workmen's inspector. 11. Have you reported all ignitions of gas by which persons received burns immediately in writing to the Under-Secretary?—No, sir, I have not. 12. You have not reported all ignitions by which persons received burns immediately in writing to the Under-Secretary? —No. 13. Have you reported any of them? —Yes. 14. Have you got copies of all the reports you have made? —Yes, sir. 15. When did you first report to the Under-Secretary the burnings by ignitions of gas of David Conn, William Willcox, and Arthur Ruston ?—I never reported them, because they were not serious. 16. Am I correctly stating the date of the burning of David Conn as the 16th February, 1912?— Conn and Willcox were working in the Extended Mine. 17. Were the injuries to Conn dated the 16th February, 1912?— D. Conn, 16th February 1912; William Willcox, 26th March, 1912. 18. Arthur Ruston, December, 1913?— I have no idea. 19. We have got it that you did not notify those three cases to the Under-Secretary?—That is perfectly correct. 20. Were you notified by the manager at (lie time of those burnings? —I could not say positively whether I. was or not. 21. Is it not a fact that you never received any notification at all of those three burnings at the time of the burnings? You say you do not know ? —I cannot remember. 22. You remember writing a letter on the Bth January, 1914, to Mr. Fletcher? —Yes. [Letter produced and read, as follows.] " Inspector of Mines Office, Thames, Bth January, 1914. "Accidents by Powder-explosions and the Ignition of Firedamp. " Will you be good enough to forward me at your early convenience a list of the persons burned by the explosion of powder and also the ignition of firedamp during the past two years, together with the dates of the accidents. An early reply will greatly oblige. " B. Bennib, Inspector of Mines. "James Fletcher, Esq., Manager, Taupiri Mines (Limiteo!), Huntly."
0.—14.
B. BENNIE. j
29
23. Then you did write and ask him? —Yes. 24. You wrote on the Bth January, 1914, asking for particulars of burnings that had occurred in the two previous years?— Yes. 25. You had forgotten that a minute ago?—No, sir. 26. The copy of the letter which you have handed to me is dated the Bth January, 1913, but it should be the Bth January, 1914, I think. If you never wrote until the Bth January, 1914, for particulars of these burnings in 1912 you waited two years, but if you wrote in 1913 you only waited one year I —Yes. 27. That is important? —Yes. What do you suggest? 28. When you wrote in January, 1914, was that the first time you had heard of them?—l think not. 29. Just remember where you did hear of them first. Did you hear of them before the beginning of this year? Mr. Fletcher never told you of them till replying to your letter of the Bth January this year in his letter of the 14th January, 1914?—0n the 22nd March, 1912, I sent to the Under-Secretary for Mines, as a claim under the Coal-miners' Relief Fund, " David Conn, Huntly, arms, neck, and face burned, 16/2/12 to 14/3/12." 30. Were they reported to you by the mine-manager? —I believe they were. 31. Will you find the report? —I will telegraph to my clerk at Thames for it. 32. It is quite clear you did, but I want you to tell me did Mr. Fletcher tell you about it?— About what? 33. Those three injuries?—ln all probability he did. 34. Then why did he write to you on the 14th January of this year about it? —In reply to my letter. 35. What are the special i*easons?—l wanted to know what accidents had occurred in the mine. 36. Did you think then that Mr. Fletcher had neglected to notify you of some If youjiad had the notifications you would not want to write for them, would youl —[No answer.] 37. Ido not think you have these other notifications from him?—l would not say that I have. 38. Did you receive any further information from Mr. Fletcher in reference to the burnings in reply to your letter of the Bth January, 1914, over and above that already received by notification in writing previously? —I think there arc only the three referred to. 39. What I am trying to find out is this : if these accidents occurred in 1912 and Mr. Fletcher never notified you, how did that come consequence of a conversation with Mr. Keed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines, I asked for that report. 40. That is why you wrote? —Yes. 41. Did not you get some information locally in Huntly?—No. 42. Now, if that is so, why should you write to get any more information than you already had?—lf you will turn to the Coal-mines Act I think you will find that the manager has to report all serious accidents. It is not absolutely necessary for him to report accidents of that nature. 43. Can you produce the deputy's report-books and your report-books regarding these burnings?— No. .44. Why not?— They are not serious accidents, and were not i-eported to roe, very likely. Not being considei'ed serious accidents I would not make a special visit of inspection. 45. Is that your whole answer?— Yes. 46. Now, turn up and tell me for how long the men got sick-pay for these non-serious accidents?—Willcox was off eighteen working-days, Conn fourteen days. 47. Ruston? —I have no note of that. 48. You never heard of that until you got Mr. Fletcher's letter of the 14th January, 1914?— I remember when visiting the mine Mr. Fletcher showed me the place where Ruston was singed. 49. But he did report further on?—No, I could not say. 50. Do you keep copies of all your reports to the Department?— Yes. 51. Have you all those reports for the last two years in connection with the Taupiri mines?— I have the 1913 reports. 52. And part of 1912?—N0. 53. Do you report to the Department all serious accidents due to ignitions of gas?—l report all serious ones. 54. Do you consider any burn by the ignition of gas a serious accident?— No. 55. Then the mere fact that there is escaping gas which causes a burn is not, prima facie. sufficient to report?—lt just depends to what extent the man is injured. 56. The mere fact that he is burned from an ignition of gas is not sufficient to report?—lt has not been in the past. 57. Do you report that gas has been found there without there is an ignition of gas?— Not unless it is a serious accident; but on my visit I inspect the place. 58. The Chairman.] If there was an escape of gas which caused a burn, would you report that?— Not unless the burn was serious. 59. The mere escape of gas you would not report?— Not unless the quantity of gas was a dangerous quantity. 60. Mr. Wilford.] Supposing there was a big escape of gas and a small burn, what would you do?— Draw the manager's attention to it and report to Wellington, and ask for permission to prosecute him. 61. Have you done so?— Yes. [Letter, 7th August, 1914, produced.] 62. This letter is dated the 7th August this year?— Yes.
C—l 4.
30
[B. BENNIE.
63. I would like that put in the evidence. Will you read it, please?—[Witness reads letter, as follows.] " Office of Inspector of Mines, Thames, 7th August, 1914. " Gas-explosion at the Taupiri Collieries. " Memorandum for the Under-Seeretary, Mines Department, Wellington. " In reply to your memo, of the 4th instant I beg to state that after careful consideration I am of the opinion that to prosecute Mr. Fletcher, the mine-manager, for a breach of Special Rule 14 in the case of William Kelly, burnt by an ignition of gas in the company's mine on the 9th July last, I may fail to get a conviction, but the moral effect of such a prosecution will be to produce more effective supervision, the value of which we cannot foresee. " In view of the alleged previous burnings by gas in the mines, apart from that of the 4th instant, it may render it necessary to prosecute. I as Inspector of Mines receive no help from the Miners' Union or their check inspectors, who are as at present constituted the creation of the mining company's directors. I have had no complaints from the union officials or any one of its members, either written or verbally, for over twelve months past. " I may say that there is very little carburetted-hydrogen gas found in the mine, but for some time past small quantities have been found and reported by the examining officers of the company. In view of that I have repeatedly requested that the roads in the mine where dry coaldust has accumulated should be adequately watered, and all shots fired in the mine to be fired by the fireman and deputy as required by Special Rule 25 (d). The manager has not complied as fully as I would like. The foot-tracks of the travelling-roads only have been watered; and, while the manager has informed me in writing that shots are being fired by officials, I am not quite sure that this is so. " I cannot recommend that safety-lamps only be used in these mines, for two reasons: (1.) Very little gas is found in the miners' working-places. It has practically always been found in- iaJJs of the roof of the old workings, and two officials are specially appointed to examine the old workings. During the week daily inspections are made and a full round of the work is made during the week. (2.) The working-places are 1.0 ft. to 18 ft. high. The light from a safety-lamp is very poor, and if the mine is to be worked as at present, by present methods, there will be a great increase in the number of accidents to miners and serious accidents, if not fatalities, as the result of defective lighting; the safety-lamps will be damaged and the end in view defeated. " To prosecute for a breach of Special Rule 14 in Kelly's case will at least have the effect of producing stricter supervision, therefore I now ask permission to summons Mr. Fletcher under Special Rule 14 of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and also permission to employ a solicitor. " B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines." Following on that the Under-Secretary authorized me to take a solicitor's opinion, and I consulted Miller and Son, of Thames, as to my chances of succeeding in the case. 64. And you absolutely claimed that the prosecution, if it took place, would possibly save the lives of the men ? —Would have the effect of stricter supervision. 65. You say in your letter to the Under-Secretary dated the 7th August, 1914, " The manager has not complied as fully as I would like. While the manager has informed -me in writing that shots are being fired by officials lam not quite sure that this is so. The light from a safety-lamp is very poor, and if the mine is to be worked as at present, by present methods, there will be a great increase in the number of accidents to miners, and serious accidents, if not fatalities " I —That is so. 66. That is your report?— That is my opinion. 67. And no prosecution followed? —The reason why was because I was advised that I could not get a conviction. 68. May I ask for your letter of the 27th August, 1914, setting out your case for the opinion of Miller and Son. [Letter handed to Mr. Wilford.] You say that the prosecution did not take place because of the solicitor's opinion? —Yes. 69. Now, in the solicitor's opinion which you read it says, "on the facts submitted to us"?— Yes. 70. And the letter j'ou put in dated the 27th August contains the facts you submitted to them? —Yes. 71. Did you tell Miller and Son that Conn, Willcox, and Ruston had been burned by ignitions of gas in 1912?— I was not instructed to do so. 72. Who fixed what you should say?— The Under-Secretary. It arose out of Kelly's burns. 73. You must surely know that the lawyer should have been advised how many burns had taken place in the last two years in order to interpret this Act. Did you give Mr. Miller any information about Ruston, Willcox, and Conn being burned? —My answer is No. 74. Did you give Miller and Son the information that you gave the Under-Secretary on the 7th August? —I think so. 75. But your letter to Miller and Son is here : three parts of it consist of quotations from the Act. The only information you give the solicitor when you asked for his opinion is, "On the 9th July ultimo a miner named W T illiam Kelly was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas in the Taupjri Coal Company's mine. The examining deputy reported finding gas in Kelly's workingplace* on the Ist July "ultimo, but on each succeeding morning up to and including the 9th July (date of accident) the examining deputy reported the place clear (safe) "?—Yes. 76. Is not that all the information you gave Mr. Miller? —No, I gave him my notes taken from the report-book, showing the occasions on which gas was found by Deputy Wear in Ralph's Mine.
B. BENNIE.]
31
C—l 4.
77. When I asked you what you gave Mr. Miller you said this was it, and yet there is something else? —There are the notes also. I think I have them here. 78. You see you have nothing to hide, but this report and these notes never came out before the Coroner's inquest, and have only come out now? —If you were present at the inquest you would have noticed there was a desire to make haste because it had been dragged out so long. I made a statement and then asked the Inspector of Police to put any questions to me. If they had wished any further information they could have had it. 79. Where are these notes?—lhey are here. [Notes produced and read by witness, as follows.] "23/3/14: No. 7 South.—Found gas in first fall, third bord.—D. Wear, Fireman and Deputy. 23/3/14 : No. 7 South. —I have cleared all gas from the same. — J. McGill, Fireman and Deputy. 22/4/14 : Little Dip.—Found gas in three falls, winch level.—D. W T ear, Fireman and Deputy. 29/4/14 : Little Dip.—Found gas in three falls. —D. Wear, Fireman and Deputy. 3/5/14: No. 7 North.—Found gas in a fall behind the Wear, Fireman and Deputy. 15/5/14 : No. 7 Section North. —Found gas behind pump. —D. Wear, Fireman and Deputy." 80. Where is that entered in duplicate?— You can get it from the examiner's report-book. 81. That is a copy of his report?— These are extracts which I took from his report-book. 82. Did you tell the Court that you told Mr. Miller that gas had been found in all these places ?—I say Yes. 83. Are you positive? —Yes. 84. I want this matter further cleared up. When you sent that statement for counsel's opinion you only made reference to Kelly's case, and that the examining deputy had reported the place clear. Now, on such a statement no lawyer could advise you otherwise than Mr. Miller did?— You read Mr. Miller's opinion. 85. Yes, he said "on the facts submitted"? —The inference was that a place might be worked where there was adequate ventilation. ' Bft. Who ordered you to take the opinion of the lawyer? —The Under-Secretary for Mines. 87. And that was on the 7th August? —I think that was the date. 88. Did you, after the lawyer's opinion, write again urging a prosecution?— No. 89. Did you ever put anything on record to the effect that you regretted that no prosecution had taken place?— No. 90. It might have saved this trouble?—lf I had been a prophet and could have foreseen I would have done so. 91. It might have saved this trouble if the prosecution had been gone on with? —I cannot say it would. 92. Is there any other correspondence on the file dealing with your application to prosecute the manager? —In what case? 93. In any case? —I think not. 94. Are you sure? Did you ever write in again asking for a prosecution to be taken? —In reference to this case? 95. No. In reference to any other case?— Since this opinion? 96. Since or before? —Yes, I have prosecuted the manager several times. 97. Since that?— No. 98. Between the 7th August and the 12th September?— No. 99. And since that opinion was taken you have not written to the Under-Secretary suggesting any prosecution? —No. 100. That is the reply you got from the Under-Secretary, dated the 11th August, 1914: " I should be glad to have your views upon this matter, particularly on the proposal to prosecute contained in the last paragraph "1 —No, that is addressed to the Inspecting Engineer. 101. Who is the Inspecting Engineer?— Mr. Reed. 102. Then, on this same paper appears Mr. Reed's report, dated 11th August, 1914. Is that his answer to the Under-Secretary for Mines ? —Yes, that is his handwriting. 103. It reads as follows: "The Under-Secretary for Mines. Ignitions of gas by which men have been burnt have occurred frequently of late at the Taupiri collieries. A. prosecution would do good even if it failed (owing to our obsolete and weak Coal-mines Act), for it would show the public that the Mines Department were alive to the danger, and it would cause the management of the company to give greater attention to the safety of his mine in future. Should an explosion occur the fact that we had prosecuted would be appreciated by the public. I recommend that Inspector Bennie consult a reliable solicitor, and if we are considered by him to have a fair chance to secure a conviction proceedings should be taken, and I will go north to assist the Inspector.—Fbank Reed, 11/8/14 "? —And the opinion was taken, and read, and handed into the Court. 104. Now, will you please read to the Commission your instruction from the Department to take that opinion ?—[Witness reads letter, as follows.] " Mines Department, Wellington, 17th August, 1914. " Gas Explosion, Taupiri Collieries. " Memorandum for the Inspector of Mines, Thames. " With reference to your memo, of the 7th instant, I have now to convey you authority to consult a solicitor as to the chances of a prosecution in the above matter being successful, and if there is a fair chance of a conviction being secured you are authorized to institute the necessary proceedings. If required, Mr. Reed will visit the district and assist you with the case. "H. J. H. Blow, Under-Secretary. "Per H.E.R."
C—l 4
32
[b.. BENNIE.
105. Whom is that signed by? —H. J. H. Blow, per H.E.R —that is Mr. Ratcliffe, Chief Clerk. 106. No prosecution took place? —That is so. 107. In that letter which you wrote to the Under-Secretary dated the 7th August, 1914, you referred to the fact that you could not get information from the men, did you not? —Yes, that is so. I said, "I as Inspector of Mines receive no help from the Miners' Union or their check inspectors, who are as at present constituted the creation of the mining company's directors." 108. I happened to notice that in that letter, but 1 want to ask you this : did not you tell the Coroner that j 7 ou did not find the men reticent in making complaints? —That is so. 109. How do you reconcile the two statements? —They had made no complaints. 110. Did you tell the Coroner that you did not find tin: men reticent or that you did find the men reticent in making complaints?— l am reported to have said, "During the last two years 1 have had no complaints from any one employed in the mine for the last two years, either as to gas or anything else wrong in the mine. I have not found gas in the working-places or travelling-roads in such quantities as would in my opinion render the use of safety-lamps compulsory." 111. Now, in your letter to Mr. Fletcher, dated the 30th May, 1914, in regard to spraying, you said that there was a great amount of dust on the travelling-roads, and you requested that same be remedied by spraying. I want you to define as clearly as you can what you meant by "a great amount of coaldust"?—Some places it might have been 2 in. deep with coaldust. It was not the very finest of coaldust. The term "coaldust" as I used it was the ordinary expression of the miner and of myself, not the dust which Professor Dixon lias declared to be so explosive. The coarse dust would probably not explode. But this dust to which I referred will rise when the men are walking along, and will he a serious source of inconvenience. 112. So that the men would get it all over them when they walked along the road?— Yes, and they would breathe it also. * 'lit 3.. Would you be prepared to say that any part of it is not explosive? —Professor Dixon gives it as his opinion that only the small dust would explode—that portion which would hang on the walls. 114. Are you differentiating it purely as that which will and that which will not hang on the walls —that the dust which is fine enough to hang on the walls will explode, while that which is too coarse to do so will not explode?— From what I have read of coaldust-explosions, and from his opinion, that is the conclusion I have arrived at. 115. In your letter to the manager dated the 30th May, 1914, you say, " From one of the coal-cutting machines in the Taupiri West Section 1 noticed a youth clearing away coaldust. The air was also ladened with dust, and as in my opinion it is unreasonable to ask persons to work under such conditions I have to request that a jet of water be used for the purpose of laying the dust which accumulates." Had that any reference to the possibility of an explosion?—No, the dust appeared to be a source of inconvenience to the boy. That is what I had in view. I had no thought of an explosion. 116. You also said that a greater quantity of air was necessary? —That is so. 117. Was it remedied? —Yes. 118. When did you go down to that section of the mine after the date of your letter — the 30th May?— The 21st August. This is a quotation from my diary dealing with the matter, and was written the day after I made the inspection : " 22nd August, 1914. With the manager and underviewer I have thjs morning continued my tour of inspection. Taupiri West • section : We inspected all the working-places and the haulage and other roads leading thereto, and found them in good order; ventilation good." 119. On the 30th May you wrote to Mr. Fletcher on the subject, and on the 21st August you found it had been remedied ? —Yes, that is correct. 120. Now, you say in your statement to Mr. Miller that gas was reported in Kelly's place on the Ist July?— Yes, that was reported in the officials' mine report-book. 121. And on the 2nd July you found gas?— Yes; my report is as follows: "2nd July, 1914. With the underviewer, Mr. W. Gowans, first-class certificated mine-manager, I have this day, between the hours of 9 a.m. ,and 1.30 p.m., examined several sections of the mine, old workings, where it was reported CH 4 gas had been found, and we found as follows : No. 7 level, south side, main haulage-road, and in the third bord, old workings, we found gas in roof over a fall of coal and rock. The gas was very strong; the area filled would be 60 cubic feet. The place is not in a travelling-road, and is fenced off." 122. Then gas was found on the 2nd July also? —Yes. My report also states, "On the said date I also visited No. 7, north side of the main haulage-road in the old workings. Behind the pump along the horse-haulage road leading to Bond's dip, and about f> chains distant from that road, I found CH 4 gas in a fall over the back of the drive. The area of the fall would be 144 square feet filled with gas to a height of about 4 ft., equalling 576 cubic feet of gas. 123. I will come back to my original statement that gas was found in the mine on the Ist, 2nd, 9th, and 14th July: the 9th July is in connection with Kelly's case? —Yes, I agree as to the 2nd and the 9th, though I was not there on the latter date. 124. In your letter to Mr. Miller you say it was the Ist July?— Yes. 125. Mr. Dowgray .~\ Are we to understand that the gas you found was in addition to what was found by the deputy? —It is in the same place. 126. Mr. Wilford.] Can you identify the 21st August as the date when gas was discovered? — Yes. My report for that date is as follows: "21st August, 1914. I entered the mine with the manager at 9.15 a.m. and examined the following places and found as follows: (a) Stone
33
C—l 4.
B. BENNIE.
drive between 6 and 7 levels, where William Kelly was burned on the 9th July ultimo. Mr. Fletcher, with a safety-lamp, examined the place over the drive timbers and found CH 4 gas. The quantity was small. 'Hie canvas is hung across the drive, but not close up to the back of the drive, so that the air may sweep the gas out of the cavity over the timbers. I advised that the debris between the side slabs near the top of the drive be cleared, so as to allow the air to more effectively sweep into the cavity. That was done late the same day, and the gas cleared out." 127. Mr. Newton.~\ I want to ask some questions with regard to that letter of the 7th August. You say in that letter, " I as Inspector of Mines receive no help from the Miners' Union or their check inspectors, who are as at present constituted the creation of the mining company's directors" : now, what did you mean by that, Mr. Bennie, "as at present constituted"?—l meant to say that from a general expression of opinion by Mr. Dixon and Mr. Stewart, who formed this union, it was generally believed that they were the agents of the mining company. 128. Generally believed by whom? —By the miners. Whether they were right or wrong, that was the opinion expressed. 129. Was Mr. Dixon an inspector at the time of the strike? —I do not think so. 130. You say the opinion was generally expressed at the time of the strike?—No, at the close of the strike, when the new union was formed by Stewart and Dixon, who were the agents of the mining company. 131. But they were not the check inspectors. You say you received no help from the check inspectors?— That is so. 132. And you say that was the general opinion of the miners? —Yes. 133. The miners formed the union—they were the union—they were the members of the union? —They say, under coercion. 134. You got your information from whom?—l formed my opinion from the expressions of opinions given by the miners. 135. Whom do you mean —there are about six hundred here? —I cannot individualize; I cannot lay. 136. You cannot say from whom you got this information? —It was the general expression of opinion at Huntly. 137. Have you ever applied to the union for any complaints they had to make? —I have. 138. When? —When Mr. Duncan was secretary. I have asked him frequently, and requested him to accompany me. 138. When was that? —Just before the strike. 140. When was that? —About two years ago. 141. When did you receive the last complaint from anybody connected with the Miners' Union ? —I could not say. I said that during the last two years I have received no complaints. 142. Did you ever during the last two years make any application for any complaints?—l cannot say. 143. Then, what did you mean by saying that you received no help during the last two years from the Miners' Union? What help did you require? —My reference was general, to the mines within my district. In North Auckland district, where I have brought several prosecutions against the mine-manager, the Miners' Union have not only not helped me, but they have given evidence for the manager. Those facts were in my mind when I wrote that letter. 144. What prosecutions are you referring to now? —The prosecution of W. R. Dunn, manager, at Hikurangi. I was speaking in general terms of miners' unions throughout my district. 145. The check inspectors are appointed by the Miners' Union and paid by the Miners' Union I—Yes.1 —Yes. 146. Mr. Napier.~\ I should like to clear up a chance expression of yours, Mr. Bennie, with regard to the inquest proceedings. You said there was a disposition to hurry matters. Did you mean to suggest that any facts were excluded or any documents not admitted which should have been tendered? —No; but there was a tendency to shorten matters up as much as possible. For instance, I was asked, "Do you agree with Mr. Woods's evidence?" so that there would be no necessity for me to repeat it. 147. Not to duplicate facts already, proved?— Yes, that is my meaning. 148. And is it not a fact that, with regard to that letter you produced to Mr. Wilford, that that was summarized in the expression that instructions had been received by you to take legal advice? —Yes.. 149. You do not wish to suggest that the inquiry was in any way less thorough because of anything you have said? —No, certainly not. 150. There is a statement in your report to the Under-Secretary when you were corresponding with him about the question of getting legal opinion : you say, " two men were appointed to examine the old workings." You do not add, but I think you mean, that they did examine the old workings? —Yes, I am satisfied they did it, because I have met them myself when I have been on my tours of inspection of the mine. 151. They were appointed exclusively for that purpose?— Yes, and they did it. 152. Referring to the report to the Department where you mention the question of the advisability or otherwise of using safety-lamps, I do not want you to repeat the lengthy letter you wrote, but would I be right in summarizing what you say in this way : that with your knowledge of the mine after five years' continuous inspection, and the full knowledge you had of the method of working adopted, that you did not think it necessary, and would not advise, the compulsory introduction of safety-lamps?— That is so.
s—o. 14.
C—l 4.
34
[b. bennie.
153. In several of your reports you refer to coaldust, and I think you elaborated your answer somewhat more here than at the inquest. May we understand from what you say to-day that when you refer to coaldust you do not mean that proportion of the dust which is so very fine and so combustible?— That is so. I did not necessarily refer to the whole of this dust as " this fine explosive dust." 154. What we may term "explosive dust " is the dust of the character described by Professor Dixon?—Yes, there may be a small percentage of it in the mine. 155. You are not always referring to that explosive dust : are referring to the general dust in the mine? —Yes. 156. Was the 22nd August the last day on which you visited the mine prior to the accident? —Yes. 157. And on that date you found, according to your report, that the ventilation was good and all was in order? —On the 21st August I referred to the finding of gas where Kelly was burned, and also in No. 7 level behind the haulage-winch and near Dooley's dip. I found gas there. My report goes on to say, " The travelling-roads have and are being watered. The dust nuisance is much abated, especially on the foot-tracks, but there is dust along the sides of the travelling-ways. The new air-shaft is brick-lined up for a distance of 20 ft." 158. You were satisfied with the condition of the mine on that date? —With those two small quantities of gas as exceptions. 159. It was in good working-order? —The mine generally was in good working-order. 160. Mr. Turtles.] I think Conn and Wilcox were both injured in the Extended Mine? —Yes. 161. Is there any connection between the two mines?—No, sir. There is a barrier as shown on the plan, 2 chains wide. 162. Do you know as a matter of fact whether Huston was burnt at all?—No, not as a matter of fact. Mr. Fletcher told me that lie had gone in and got slightly burnt, and he showed me the place. ■vl63 v He made no claim on the fund? —Of that I could not be positive, but I do not think so. 164. Now, have you ever asked that the haulage-way be watered?— Not specially the haulageroad—that is, the main haulage-road. 165. No copy of your letter to the Department was ever sent to Mr. Fletcher? —No. 166. That was entirely a departmental matter?— Yes. 167. He was never informed that you even contemplated a prosecution?— No. 168. These manifestations of gas which have been spoken of—on the Ist, 2nd, 9th, and 14th July : the one on the Ist was in the stone drive, Dooley's end : was that where Kelly was burnt? —Yes. 169. Were the exudations of gas found on the Ist and 9th July in the same place?— Yes. 170. And those on the 2nd and 14th were also in the same place, No. 7 level in the old workings?— Those of the Ist, 9th, and 14th were in the same place. 171. And the other one was in the old workings? —Yes. 172. The exudations found on the Ist, 9th, and 14th were all found in working-places?— Yes, it was a working-place. 173. Mr. Brown.] On three different dates you found gas at this particular place?— Yes. 174. Mr. Tunks.] I would like a copy of your memo, in Mr. Fletcher's report-book, dated the 2nd July, 1914, to go into the evidence. Will you read it please?—[Witness reads report, as follows.] " To-day, with the underviewer, Mr. Gowans, first-class certificated mine-manager, I have between the hours of 9 a.m. and 1.30 p.m. examined several sections of the old workings, where it was reported CH 4 gas had been found, and found as follows: No. 7 level, south side road leading to Bond's dip, and about 6 chains distant from the road, I found CH 4 gas in a fall over a fall of coal and rock. The gas was very strong, 9 per cent. The area filled would be 60 cubic feet of gas. The place is not a public travelling-road, and is fenced off. No. 7 level, north side of the main haulage-road, in the old workings behind the pump off the horse-haulage of the main haulage-road and in the third bord (old workings), we found CH 4 gas in the roof over the back of the drive. The area of the fall would be 144 square feet filled to a height of 4 ft., equalling 576 cubic feet of gas. Little dip, old workings, winch level : Three old bords examined where the back of those places were falling up to a thin seam of coal. Fireman and Deputy D. Wear reported that he found CH,, gas- in those places on his examination on the 22nd and 29th April ultimo. However, no gas was found by me to-day in the places. The falls left cavities (a) 576 cubic feet, (b) 1,000 cubic feet, (c) 1,400 cubic feet. It should be noted that the 22nd and 29th are both Wednesdays. It has been stated to me that the mine-ventilating fan is not run continuously during Sundays. It is clear that on the dates referred to, 22nd and 29th April, the ventilation could not be affected by the fan stopping on the Sundays. Crossing through the old workings we reached the damaged pillar area (below the Waikato River), No. 2 north section, and we carefully examined that area. There appears to be no further noticeable damage to the pillars since my previous visit. The whole of the old workings are examined once a week by two certified firemen and deputies. Coaldust in the travelling-roads has not been attended to as might have been expected. I left a memo, in the manager's report-book requesting that the dry coaldust in the No. 6 level south, Taupiri West travelling-road, and No. 6 haulage-road, together with sections of the main dip travelling-road, be removed or efficiently watered. — B. Benntb." 175. Did you again visit those places where gas was found later on?—I have no reference to testing on that occasion. Mv visit was to examine the place where Kelly was burnt, to enable me to report to the Under-Secretary. On the 21st August I visited No. 7 level south, behind the haulage-winch, in what is known as Dooley's dip, with Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gowans. We found no traces of gas there, additional brattice having been erected since my previous visit,
35
0.—14.
B. BENNIE.
17G. Something had been done and you found no trace of gas? —Yes. There was a fall, and there was a brattice-cloth up the centre of the drive. On my next visit that canvas had been re-erected and there was no trace of gas. 177. You have referred to prosecuting the manager on three occasions: can you remember what those prosections were for? —One was to insist upon an engine-driver being on shift from 12 midnight till 8 a.m. 178. And it had nothing whatever to do with gas, or dust, or ventilation, or anything of the kind? —Nothing whatever. 179. It was a question of the construction of the rules? —Yes; it was merely a technical matter, and my interpretation was correct. The second case was in regard to a check inspector, Mr. Fulton, who was appointed after the strike. The check inspectors, of whom he was one, presented themselves at the Taupiri West Mine to make an examination, and the manager refused to let Mr. Fulton into the mine because he was not an employee of the colliery. 180. Mr. Wilford.] What was the manager prosecuted for? —For not allowing the check inspector to examine the mine. 181. Mr. Tunks.] Are those the only prosecutions you can think of?—I cannot remember any others. 182. Mr. Maca-i-sey.] How often would you inspect the Taupiri mines in the ordinary course of your duties?— About four times a year. 183. And 1 think you visited this mine very frequently during this year? —I had been seven or eight times into the mine this year before the explosion. 184. You say you visited this mine seven or eight times : does that mean that you were seven or eight times underground?—[After consulting diary] I have been actually in the mine on separate days eight times between May or June of this year and the date of the explosion. 185. Is it part of your duty to direct as to how the mining operations are to be carried on? —No. 186. I take it that it is your duty to see that the provisions of the Coal-mines Act and Regulations are duly complied with ?—Yes, that is so. 187. Are you under the control of the Inspecting Engineer, or what is your position?—My position is this : I receive my instructions from the Under-Seoretary of the Mines Department. 188. And what is the position of the Inspecting Engineer ?—So far as I know I have no authority to take any instructions from him. 189. You have told us that prior to the date of the disaster you believed that the circumstances did not justify you in insisting upon the installation of safety-lamps? —Yes. 190. But since the explosion, and since hearing the evidence of Professor Dixon as to the inflammability of the coaldust, and after reading Dr. Maclaurin's report on the samples, you are satisfied that safety-lamps should be introduced ? —Yes, I have ordered them, and they have been introduced into the mine. 191. Regarding these proceedings upon which Mr. Wilford examined you, did you ask for instructions from the Department ? —Yes. 192. And you were advised to consult a solicitor? —Yes. 193. And that is the reason why you did not prosecute?— Yes. 194. And you say also that you never received any complaint about the mine?— Not during the past two years. 195. Neither from members of the present union nor the old one?— From neither of them. 196. The Chairman.] You said in reply to a question about your instructions to water the dust that you did that out of consideration for the workmen, and not with any idea that the dust might be dangerous. You had not in your mind the idea of an explosion, but only the inconvenience caused to the workmen ? —Primarily, it was the inconvenience to the workmen which I was considering. 197. In your memo, left with the manager on the 2nd July you twice say that coaldust was found on the travelling-roads in dangerous quantity, and again in regard to No. 6 level : what did you mean by that? —I was also aware that coaldust had been stated by eminent authorities to have been a material factor in causing colliery disasters in cases where the ignition of carburetted-hydrogen gas or a blown-out shot caused the trouble. 198. You must have had in your mind the danger of an explosion?— Yes, I had that in my mind also, but primarily my instruction was given in order to remove what was an undoubted inconvenience to the men. 199. And you said that the dust should be removed or watered? —Yes. 200. Were your instructions carried out? —Partly. The foot-tracks, which would be the most dangerous part of the mine, were watered, so that a very material part of my instructions were carried out, thought not as fully as I would have liked. 201. Were you satisfied? —I was satisfied that the danger to a great extent was removed. 202. Would it not have been safer if the sides had been watered as well as the other places?— Yes, certainly; but, speaking roughly, 75 per cent, of the danger was removed. 203. When you make an inspection of a mine do you always test for gas, or only when the existence of gas has been reported to you?—ln an open-light mine I only test for gas when it has been reported, or when a fall takes place which would create dangerous conditions, 204. Then your attention has to be directed to it before you make any special examination? — Yes, unless I know of a fall. 205. You do not make any test generally? We heard about the passages being beyond the reach of the miners' lanterns: how would you test in that place?— Well, sir, in a place that is beyond a man's height the miner with his pick makes a hole in the wall about 6 ft. high. Into
36
[b. bennie.
U!—l4.
these holes he puts bearers, on which is placed a plank. By this means he can inspect a high place. There is a ladder in every man's place to enable him to reach the platform. [Witness further explained his point by diagram]. 206. When you referred to " old workings " were you speaking of absolutely abandoned workings, or are they only temporarily in disuse? —They are places where the company has permanently ceased to work. There is no hope in this mine to take out the pillars there unless they fill the places with rock. They might then be able to take them out under the river. 207. They cannot take them out otherwise because of the fear of the water coming in?— Yes, the overlying strata must be kept up. 208. Are they—the old workings—used for any purpose at all now?—No, they are not used for any purpose, but sometimes the management allows the rails to lie in those old workings until they are wanted. The unfortunate men who were killed were going there to remove the rails. 209. Ordinarily that portion of the mine is properly secured? —Yes, it is old workings. It is nobody's business to go in. 210. Do the men never go in at all for personal purposes? —No, there is a W.C. outside. 211. But do they always use it?—We believe so, though one of the witnesses, Young—who was an old-workings examiner—said he had seen persons going in there to ease themselves instead of going to the pan. 212. Do you think that things should be left as they are, or do you think the men should be forcibly kept-out of those places? Is the present rule broken? —Well, they are intelligent men. 213. But all men are not intelligent—you know that?—A good many of them are. 214. In view of the danger of going into those workings, 1 ask you if you think the precautions are sufficient? —Many of the old bords are closed—stopped by brick walls; others have an iron rail or a piece of 4 in. by 4 in. timber placed across the old drive. That is the only precaution I have ever known to be taken in any mine. That is done here. That, I think, is sufficient. 215. Is this old part essential in any way for the ventilation of a mine?—So as to remove the possible danger of any accumulation of gas, the return air, after it has passed through the present workings, is allowed to go through the old workings so as to remove the gas there. If the air is confined to one course and stopped off to make it go through that course, then those old workings would become a very serious menace to the lives of the workers. The system of allowing the air to scale through the old workings is a good one. 216. Mr. Napier.] With regard to the deputies who were appointed to examine the old workings, as per your report, the law does not require the appointment of any inspectors for this purpose, does it?—l am not quite sure that there is a section which requires a manager to have all such places inspected. 217. I am now referring to your report, in which you say that until Mr. Fletcher came here there were no special officers appointed to continuously inspect these places?— No. 218. So that this is an extra precaution, of having two officers specially appointed for the purpose? —Yes, sir. Mr. Bbnnie recalled. 219. Mr. Dowgray.] In reporting the conditions of the mine, to whom do you report?—To the Under-Secretary of the Mines Department. 220. From whom do you receive your instructions?— From the Under-Secretary of the Mines Department. 221. Have you ever been instructed to address any of your correspondence to the Inspecting Engineer of the Mines Department ?—No. 222. Have you ever consulted the Inspecting Engineer?—As a consultation, no. 223. You stated yesterday that in the ordinary course of your inspection you usually visited the mine four times in the year?— Yes. 224. Do you think in this mine the management was carried out in accordance with the Coal-mines Act, and that the working of the mine was conducted to the best advantage of the miners and everybody concerned?— Yes, with the exception of the points to which I drew their attention. 225. How do you account for departing from your usual course of inspection by visiting this mine eight times this year between the month of May and the date of the disaster ? There seems to have been something which caused you undue alarm?— Yes. In consequence of the reports of the examining deputies regarding the old workings I visited more frequently. They reported finding gas in the stone drive and in No. 7 south and No. 7 north, and also in one or two old bords, towards the little old dip. Those were my reasons for the extra visits. 226. In your opinion, then, things were not so safe during the last four years as they had been previously?—My opinion was that there was an element of danger present. My inspections were made in order to see exactly the extent of those dangers, and as to whether adequate precautions were taken. 227. Were the adequate precautions provided?— Yes, reasonable precautions were taken. 228. You stated yesterday that you thought the mine was a safe one with the exception of the explosions of the gas and the coaldust?—Yes, that is so. 229. What did you mean when you wrote a letter asking for permission practically to compel the company to install safety-lamps in the mine? —That was after the ignition of a small quantity of gas in the stone drive and the location of small quantities in the old workings. That was in accordance with my adopted system of taking all possible precautions in view of these dangers.
37
C—l 4,
B. BENNIE.
230. And in the 'same letter you stated that even although you were not able to get a conviction against the management, it might have the effect of making them provide a more strict supervision than that which had taken place previously? —I do not know that. 231. You say "to prosecute them for a breach of the Special Rule 14 in Kelly's case will at least have the effect of producing stricter supervision " I —Yes. 232. Then if it were the ignitions of gas which were causing you anxiety, and not the supervision, why should you seek to obtain stricter supervision by prosecution?— Prior to the burning of Kelly, or immediately afterwards, some pieces of rag got into an air-pipe and so interfered with the ventilation. If stricter supervision had been provided that would have been detected earlier. 233. Surely that was a minor thing?—No, because a miner was burnt. 234. But that was only one circumstance?— Well, about that time immediately after the burning of Kelly, 1 demanded that all shots should be fired by officials appointed under section 25 (d) of the special rules. That would mean stricter supervision, because it would provide against tKe danger of a blown-out shot. 235. That is so : but at the same time you admit that the mine was, comparatively speaking, a safe one, with the exception of the coaldust. But you say that you do not recommend the introduction of safety-lamps owing to the height of the workings?— Yes, the working-places are from 10ft. to 18 ft. high, and the light from a safety-lamp is very poor; consequently if safetylamps were to be introduced there would be a great increase in the number of accidents to miners, and serious accidents if not fatilities, as the result of defective lighting. The safety-lamps would be damaged and the end in view defeated. 236. How would there be more fatalities—by falls from the roof ?—I think I explained that yesterday. With places 18 ft. high no person can stand on the floor and examine or work to that height; most men cannot reach above 7 ft. With imperfect lighting the dangers would be increased. 237. You are aware that seams are worked as high in Wales as they are here? —I have never been there. 238. And in America higher?— But they have a great many fatalities there. 239.. The main thing which you wanted to secure by a prosecution was stricter supervision?— Yes; the manager had one underground manager and he had also several other capable men under him, but under the special circumstances I desired him to provide a further supervision. He had one first-class mail, and in a large mine such as this 1 thought he should have two. 240. You spoke yesterday about the dust in the travelling-roads: was your complaint on account of the disagreeableness to the men travelling?— Yes, and because of the elements of danger from an explosion if the dust were ignited, though the danger would not be so great in the travelling-roads as it is in the working-places. There is seldom carburetted hydrogen to be found on the travelling-roads. Further, I have never heard of any shot-firing on the travellingroads : therefore there was no chance of blown-out shots in the vicinity of where the dust was. The primary object I had in view was the inconvenience to the men caused by the dust. 241. In what manner would it be an inconvenience to them? —They would be breathing the coaldust when travelling alone the roads. 242. The dust was sufficiently fine to be raised when the men were travelling? —Yes; that was prior to the disaster and before the road had been watered, and that was the most dangerous part. 243. Did the men fire their own shots?—l was informed by the manager that my instructions regarding the appointment of shot-firers had been carried out, but from something 1 heard and from evidence given at the inquest I am afraid that that was not so—or, at any rate, all the shots were not fired by the shot-firers. 244. You had been mislead?— That is the position. 245. What do you mean by that?—At the inquest one witness, in answer to my question on the subject, said, " So far as me and my mate are concerned, we fire our own shots." 246. During your inspections of the mine since the explosion did you discover any ladders in the working-places?—l was only in one working-place—in No. 5 section, where we believe the ignition took place which caused the disaster. These places are not excessively high-—perhaps 10 ft. or 12 ft. We saw one ladder, but it was broken, and whether that was the result of the force of the explosion or whether it had been in that state before the explosion I am unable to say. A ladder would not be much use there except for examination purposes. 247. Referring to your letter of the 7th August, where you make reference to receiving no assistance during the last two years from the Miners' Union, you say also that the union or their check inspectors are as at present constituted the creation of the mining company's directors. When Mr. Newton examined you upon this point you said that you intended that to mean a general statement, and might even refer to the Northern Company at Whangarei ?—Yes; I meant to convey this impression : that the unions on the dates referred to had been established after the industrial strikes, and were what were called "break-strike" unions. The check inspectors appointed by these unions showed no disposition to assist me in regard to improving unsatisfactory conditions in the mine. When I wrote that memorandum I had in my mind one case which I brought against a mine-manager at Hikurangi, Mr. W. R. Dunn. When I asked the union there to supply me with a witness I found that I dare not call him because his evidence would have been against me and in favour of the manager. He was in an intoxicated state and I could not call him, whereas the mine-manager had his officials present, and also some miners, who gave evidence on his behalf. Although I had a good case I could not secure a conviction because I had no witnesses.
C—l 4.
38
[b. bennie.
248. What were the miners afraid of?— Well, they were not afraid of the manager, because they gave evidence on his side. I may say also in regard to the Taupiri mines that my acquaintance with the union here has been somewhat unfortunate. When Mr. Duncan was secretary to the Miners' Union I have on occasions inspected the mine and found things in very fair order —1 am now referring to the Extended Mme —and on a subsequent visit I found a report in the check inspector's book making complaints regarding certain sections of the mine. These 1 found to be very trivial, and when I said so the check inspectors became very abusive towards me. 249. But prior to this period of two years, do 1 understand that you derived some assistance from the check inspectors?— Yes, there are check inspectors and check inspectors. I remember Mr. Turton and one or two others who were very decent, respectable men. 250. Is the promoter of this union not Mr. Dixon, check inspector? —I do not know. 251. You have been down the Little dip in this mine?— Yes. 252. Where the rails are lying?— Yes. 253. Did you note where body No. 43 was found? —No, I was not in the mine then. 254. Was that the return or intake airway ? —The returns all went along that way. 255. Is it customary to travel return airways with naked lights, in a mine giving off gas?— it is not a travelling-way at all. 256. Is it customary to enter returns with naked lights?— That is in a return where the miners in the ordinary course of their duties have occasion to be. 257. Is it customary for any person to enter return airways with naked lights and to travel them with naked lights ?—So far as I am personally aware I do not know that any one did so. 258. I want to know from you, as Inspector Mines, and a man with a considerable amount of mining experience, if any person should travel a return airway with a naked light, and more especially in a mine which is known to contain gas in sufficient quantities to warrant your visiting it eight times in four months ?—No, I do not think it would be right to do it. I)o you know that on the morning of the disaster certain men are alleged to have been sent there for the purpose of lifting rails —not in the old workings, but in what was for the time being a disused part of the mine I —The evidence given before the inquest shows that that was so, but 1 have no knowledge of it myself. 260. What is your interpretation of " old workings," and what is the difference between them and that what you call disused workings for the time being ?—The old workings were the areas set apart to be inspected by liremen and deputies, and include the Little dip workings, where these rails were lying, and workings which are not in any way connected though close by the present workings of the mine. They are workings just finished, but yet in the centre of the district where the men are at present working. 261. So that the Little dip would come under the heading of " disused workings " and not old workings?— Yes, the section where the rails were lying. 262. And if men were to go there, it ought to be examined by a deputy before?— Yes. 263. And reported in the report-book: is it reported in the report-book as being examined, that particular part of the mine? —I do not think so. He meant that he had not examined it because it was not under his official supervision. I think that was Skelleni, who examined the locality. He says in his report, "No. 7 North section and No. 8. Lake section: I, the undersigned, have examined between the hours of 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. all working-places, airways, brattice, and travelling-roads in the above-named sections, also No. 6 stone drive, and found all safe, ventilation good. — J. Skbllern." 264. Mr. Napier.] That is the morning of the accident? —Yes. 265. Mr. Bowgray .] Then, if men were deputed to lift rails there, whose duty was it to see that the place was safe? —The manager's. Knowing that they were going into disused workings he should have given instructions to the old-workings deputy or to one of those deputies to make an examination between 5 and 7 on the morning of the 12th. 266. Such an inspection not being recorded, we must assume it was not made? —Yes. 267. In your opinion, should not these old workings be properly fenced off? —Yes. 268. What is a sufficient fence, in your opinion? —If an iron rail be placed across securely about 3 ft. high, the whole width, that would be adequate, unless it was leading to a place where there was a fall and a small accumulation of gas, or likely to be one. Then, I think, a board bearing the word " Danger " should be placed there as well. 269. I was going to ask you your opinion with regard to the instructions to deputies as to examining the mine, in the English Act. Under that Act they are supposed to examine disused as well as working-places , ?— Well, we had two men here to do that. 270. Every morning, two hours before the men went in?—My contention is that they ought to have been examined not more than two hours before the men went in. 271. We are to report any suggestions necessary to prevent similar occurrences in the future, and we would like your advice as to whether deputies should be required to examine disused workings for the time being as well as old workings and working-places?— Well, I should say Yes, if they were adjacent to the working-places. 272. That was a place where you would derive a supply of your rails: that would be a proper place to be examined every morning?— Well, unless because it was in a section a long way from any other section—except those in No. s—so5 —so that it would come under the designation of "old workings"; but generally speaking I should classify it as "old workings" where rails were lying. If you look at the plan you will see that there are only some four or five bords at the most in the small section No. 5, and there are disused workings between that and 6 and 7, and also above it again to the shaft.
39
C—l 4.
B. BENNIE.
273. That was a working-place in the old part of the mine?—No, a small section of the mine where it was difficult to get the coal out. In a short time that section would be worked out. 274. Those workings had been abandoned for the time being?— Yes, and until they could get at it in a more economical way. 275. In connection with your duties as Inspector of Mines, have you found yourself hampered in any way under the present Act, or have you any suggestions to make regarding the advisability of getting more power in reference to the installation of safety-lamps in a mine, as there is in the English Act ?—No; I have not read the English Act. 276. You will see that the Inspector there has the power to order safety-lamps, especially if there is J per cent, of gas in the main return airways? —If they work it we can work it. 277. If it is possible there to ascertain \ per cent, of gas in the return airway, it is possible to do so here ?—Yes, we can send samples for analysis. 278. And you think that if we incorporated the whole of their provisions regarding safetylamps in our Act it would have a beneficial effect? —That would be too much to say, because I have not read the section; but we generally regard the provisions of the English Act as setting forth a standard which we can reasonably follow. 279. Do you think it would be better if our Act provided that the Inspector of Mines could immediately insist upon the introduction of safety-lamps?— Yes, I certainly think it would be better, and indeed very necessary. 280. You have had analysis made, I understand, of mine-airs from Taupiri mines?— Yes, it was made by Dr. Maclaurin, Dominion Analyst, and reads as follows : — " No. 1 at No. 2 pump; No. 2 at No. 5 level north. "Analyses — No. I. No. 2. Methane (CH 4 ) ... ... ... ... ... o'o9 Nil Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) ... ... ... ... ... o'2o O'lO Oxygen ... ... ... ... ... ... 2026 2080 -. Nitrogen ... ... . . ... ... ... 7915 79-10 100-00 100-00 " 281. Mr. Dowgray.] On what date was that taken?— The 16th September, four days after the disaster. The temperature-reading by the hydrometer was 70° wet bulb and 71° dry bulb, so that the air was almost completely saturated. That was at the same time, 282. How can you lay any stress on that analysis in view of the fact that such a volume of gas was discovered? That gas had been liberated daring that time? —I measured the air and found 9,554 cubic feet per minute. 283. That was air which had just come from the surface, so that it could not be taken as direct evidence of the state of the ventilation at the time of the accident? —I admit it may have been short-circulated. 284. It was only going round a very small portion of the mine? —I could not say. 285. How would you account for such a volume of gas there, and also fires in the return airways? —The analysis shows that there was no carburetted hydrogen in the air. 286. But the air-crossing was blocked ? —No, this air-crossing was not blocked. 287. It certainly eased your conscience to proceed further, but it must be quite clear to you that the air had not reached that volume of gas at that particular time, or your sample would not have been as clear? —It was just about that time that the accumulation of gas was detected by Walter Mills on the Monday, the 14th. 288. Had any analysis been taken of the air in these airways before? —No analysis of the air in the return airways had been made prior to the explosion. 289. The only thing that that shows is that every precaution was taken by the company in connection with the rescue part} 7 after the explosion?—-Yes, that is so. 290. Have you any suggestions to offer in regard to the amendment of the Coal-mines Act? Do you think if the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Mines were embodied in the Act it would have the effect of lessening the risk of similar accidents ? There is a clause which gives the Inspector of Mines greater power?—l think the Inspector of Mines should have more power than he has at present. 291. With reference to the system of the workings, is it not clearly the duty of the Inspector of Mines to see that the provisions of the Coal-mines Act are carried out irrespective of employees and employers?— Yes, that is so. 292. When you came back to the Huntly Mine on special occasions you did so in order to satisfy yourself that the conditions were satisfactory ?—Yes, to see whether they were or not. Mr. Benme recalled. 293. Mr. Macassey.] What experience have you had, ooal-mining and gold-mining? —About forty-seven years. 294. I believe, in England, Scotland, New South Wales, and New Zealand? —Yes. 295. Have you managed mines in Now Zealand? —Yes, the Mokau Mine, for about two years. 296. And I think you won the gold medal at the Waihi School of Mines? —Yes. 297. You have been Inspector of Mines for this district for about seven j^ears?—Yes. 298. And previous to that you were an Assistant Inspector?— Yes, with headquarters at Waihi. 299. During the term you have been Assistant Inspector and Inspector how many serious accidents have been reported from Ralph's Mine?— Only one by burning by gas. 300. That was the case of Kelly in July?—Yes.
40
[b. bennie.
C—l 4.
301 And in the Extended Mine?—No serious accidents were reported to me from there. Willcox and Conn were burnt. I only got the information when 1 asked the manager for it 302. You wrote to Mr. Fletcher for a return of the cases of burning during the last two years —that was in January? —Yes. 303. Have you any reason to suspect that that list is not correct* —JNo. 304 You report every month to the Under-Secretary for Mines? —Yes. 305. Your report contains a summary of your inspections of the various mines tor the previous month? —Yes. 306 Have you found gas in the working-places in Ralphs Mine?— Never. 307. And have you made a thorough inspection of the working-places?— Not with a satetymP 3oB. Have you used the ladders and examined the working-places?— Yes. 309. And you never found gas there? —No. 310. Have you examined the old workings? —I have. 311 Have you found gas there ? —Yes. 312' In large or small quantities ?-On one occasion 212 cubic feet and in another place on the same day somewhere about 550 ft. It was a gaseous mixture, with a percentage of about 6 Per 3l3 nt How many times did you discover gas in the old workings since January last?-Speak-ing from memory, about three separate times. 314. Was that gas cleared away?— Yes; one time I might have found it and the next time I wouldl not Mr Fktcher agki him t0 water the coaldust: that was because of inconvenience 7 caused by the dust to the men?-Yes, I thought it was unreasonable to expect " b<> "3l6 W On k tne e iHh July you wrote again to Mr. Fletcher pointing out the danger from coaldust, ■■md alskine him to appoint shot-firers and to water the coaldust ?—That is so. and f^ Y^h&d P q P prior tQ the disaster any knoW ledge of the extreme inflammability of the coaldust - f is X; ? - r N e ° x , ence that the direotions you gave in regard to watering the dust and thi Tappointaei of snoffirers were sufficient to secure the safety of the men m the mmc?YeS 319. I understand that you met Mr. Reed at the Thames about the sth September of this year 320 Ye W.s it arranged that he should come to the Than.es to see yout-He came to the Thames to attend fconfe "nee with Warden Burgess, Inspector Paul, and myself to inquire into an application for a loan which was made by one of the gold-mining companies. Also, it was understood that should I be advised that there was a reasonable chance of my securing a conviction alinst the Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited) in reference to Ralph's Mine, he was to assist me with the prosecution P He had also arranged to make a visit of inspection to the mines in the North Island. , IX lt\T^o7t;Vr^nL,too A from Mr. Reed that he had to hurry back to the WeSt 3 S a had passed between Mr. Reed and the UnderSe ° re 324 y you his fears of the dangerous condition of Ralph's Mine'-We had Conversations o/the subject! but as I had a more perfect know edge of the conPrefe 325 d Hhirlk tTlTpection of the old workings which was commenced some years ago was undertaken at your suggestion ? —Yes. St. t "u/SS , the ~,„« did ™ »,e.»r. the ,».,,tity of .i, p.».» g through Tes the m,».gS "tified me .arlj, in the year of his intention to .ink m ..r-h.ft *■ «■*» ■ "''aK-StlrSt you top. .«J -pinion .. to the amount of gf . in the feet ' S3l Have you formed any opinion as to which way Martin got into 6?-I am thoroughly liillieiie not likely that he could have been that far ahead of the boys.
B. BENNIE. I
41
C—l 4.
3;52. In regard to the question of lamps, I think Mr. Reed said lie brought you a couple of electric lamps?— Yes, those we used in the deep levels at the Thames, and I think also in the Waitangi Mine for about three hours. He left them with me and suggested that I should show them to Mr. Fletcher, believing that they would give adequate light in Ralph's Mine for the high bords that were being worked. That was about the 6th or 7th September. These lamps have no value whatever for detecting firedamp —they are merely to give light; and a miner might be using one of those and be in a dangerous mixture without knowing it. 333. I think you had a brother-in-law, Mr. Holden, lost in the disaster?— Yes. 334. What position did he hold in the mine? —Generally speaking, he was an official who was held in reserve by the underground manager. If any of the men were absent on holiday or through incapacitation he was employed as underviewer at Ralph's : that meant that they had one spare manager. 335. He was a very experienced miner? —Yes. 336. How many years' experience had he had?—l should say, about forty-six years. 337. If you had been apprehensive of danger you could have got a confidential report from him? —Yes, and I have had confidential consultations with him when I thought some little matters were being concealed, and the only information I was able to get from him was that he thought my instructions to Mr. Fletcher that only shot-firers should be permitted to fire shots were not being carried out as fully as I wished, and probably as Mr. Fletcher expected. 338. So that neither you nor Mr. Holden apprehended any serious danger in this mine? —No. 339. In regard to your duties, under section 58 of the Act, if the mine is exceptionally dangerous, have you full power to remove the men? —Yes. 340. Subject to the right of appeal by the company under section 57?— Yes. 341. Where a mine is dangerous from firedamp you have full power to call the men out?— Yes. 342. Mr. Napier.] Then, following on that answer, may I take it that you never did consider that this mine was specially dangerous within the meaning of that section? —I never did. 343. Would you recommend the compulsory introduction into the coal-mines of the Dominion of the lamp submitted by Mr. Reed? —No. 344. Mr. Doivgray.] I understand that the liquid ran out of it: it is not on that account that you would not recommend it? —No, but because it gives no indication whatever of the presence of firedamp. Moreover, the luminous flame is so little better than the oil-lamps we have. They could not be procured in this country —they would have to be brought from England. 345. Mr. Napier.] I think we all understand, and a vast amount of evidence has been led to prove, that firedamp is the most dangerous in any mine? —Yes, that is so. 346. And that the principal object of legislation and rules is to enable the presence of firedamp to be immediately detected? —Yes. 347. Then if a lamp is worthless for the purpose of detecting the presence of firedamp it is of very little use?— Yes. 348. Are there no other means of detecting the presence of firedamp than with the safetylamp ?—No other practical means. 349. You have worked in similar capacities during your long career to that in which Martin worked ? —Yes. 350. And you would understand, I suppose, how a man in his position would act in a given contingency? —Yes, in a position such as his I would not have gone into that section of the mine without first having received instructions from a responsible officer. 351. If you had been in Martin's position would you have gone through that little door under the circumstances, or would you have gone round by the circuitous route? —I should have gone through the little door. 352. Have you seen that plan upon which Mr. Reed marked with green ink a certain section which he called a " panel " ? —I know the section on my own plan. 353. He drew an arbitrary boundary himself? —I have seen the plan here, but I have not seen the line he made. [Plan explained to witness.] I recognize the plan produced and observe the green boundary-line marked on it by Mr. Reed. 354. Can you tell us whether it was possible to ventilate that section enclosed in that green line?— Quite possible. 355. Mr. Dowgray.] With the aid of brattice? —No. 356. Mr. Napier.] Would you tell us what means you would adopt for the ventilation of that portion of the mine?— Many cut-throughs could be closed with canvas stoppings, or brick or timber stoppings. The dead ends can be ventilated by carrying canvas up one side about 3 ft. from one wall, the air travelling up either between the canvas and the wall or returning. 357. Then you would not say that permanent stagnant air would remain in the portion surrounded by the green line? —No, the small door was not a check door or a double door, but No. 1 and No. 2 bords were leading across from the intake to the return, where it is very desirable that as little leakage as possible should take place. We have what may be called an air-lock— that is, two doors. By opening one you pass into a chamber, then you open the other and pass into the return. That makes the leakage very, very small indeed. But this door at the end of No. 6 bord was not an air-lock —it was a single door; and no matter how closely it fitted there would be a considerable amount of leakage through that door. I measured with an anemometer after the disaster, when the stoppings were blown out, and found that there was only approximately 12,000 cubic feet of air passing through that place. The air-pressure would be against that door with the door in that position, and the leakage would be very considerable. [Witness hm-e discussed the plan with Mr. Dowgray.]
6—C. 14.
a—l 4.
42
[b. bennie.
358. And you do not agree with the suggestion of Mr. Dowgray that that door was hung in such a way that the pressure of the air would open it?—No, because it would be impossible for an accumulation of gas to remain in No. 6 bord. •359. You told us that you understood when you saw Mr. Reed at the Thames prior to his going to the West Coast that he had arranged to make an inspection of Ralph's Mine?— Yes. 360. How many days after that arrangement had been made did he leave for the West Coast? —The arrangement was made prior to his coming to the Thames. The Under-Secretary in his memo, to me said that Mr. Reed would come north to assist me in the prosecution if there was a fair chance of obtaining a conviction. He was to come north in connection with that and the conference regarding the loans. 361. Then the inspection by Mr. Reed and yourself had been arranged prior to Mr. Reed's coming to the Thames, and was in conjunction with the prosecution and also the proposal to lend money to the gold-mining companies? —Yes. 362. During the time that Mr. Reed was with you at the Thames did he appear to suffer from great anxiety as to the condition of Ralph's Mine?—No, sir. 363. Did he indicate to you during that visit that there was a daily or momentary danger of a holocaust?—No, sir. 364. If you had thought that there was any danger of any loss of life, and Mr. Reed had indicated his opinion to you, would you not have hastened to Huntly at once? —I should have ordered the men out of the mine at once. 365. Under the power you have under the existing law?— Yes. 366. Then if that very full power is given to 3 r ou by the existing law would you consider that the present law is obsolete or useless?—l think that that section of the Act is subject to arbitration. 367. But you can order them out —the men come out on your order?— Yes, but the compam' can object. 368. Then the responsibility is not on you? —No. 369. You stated that early in April, 1914, the manager informed you of the intention to install a more powerful ventilating-fan? —Yes. 370. You had given him no order to do so?— No. 371. It was purely voluntary on the part of the company?— That is so. 372. If you had determined that the ventilation was insufficient you would have given them notice to put in a more powerful fan? —Or had a more equal distribution of the air. 373. In the course of your duty you inspect many other mines besides Ralph's?— Yes, all the coal-mines in the North Island. 374. I want to.ask. you a comparative question: have you considered the question of the safety of Ralph's Mine in comparison with the other mines which you inspect?—l considered the Extended Mine the safest mine in my district, and Ralph's next. 375. You know Ralph's shaft well, do you not? —Yes, I know it well. 376. How many years is it since you first inspected that mine? —Nine. 377. So that you have known the shaft for nine years?— Yes. 378. Do 3'ou consider that the shaft-pillars arc sufficient to sustain the weight and make the shaft safe?— They have shown no signs of deterioration since I first inspected them. They are cut up considerably, but they have shown no signs of deterioration during that nine years. 379. I do not want you to say anything that is unfair or contrary to the ordinary rules of private correspondence by telling me the contents of private letters, but I want to ask you a general question with regard to your knowledge. Had you since January of the present year become possessed of the belief of Mr. Reed that there was imminent danger of a holocaust in this mine? —He has from time to time expressed the opinion that there was some little danger because of the alleged burnings by firedamp, but he never once gave me the impression that he thought that there would be such a disaster or anything approaching the disaster that has occurred. I formed the opinion from his expressions that there might be some others burned as Kellv was burned. 380. By ignitions? —Yes. 381. I mean, could you judge when he came to confer with you —it was confidential? (Inofficial. 382. Did you ever see the Inspecting Engineer officially? —Yes, when he came to report at the Thames on the loan applications. 383. May I put it in this way : that since December, 1913, Mr. Reed did not officially confer with you regarding Ralph's Mine? —No, he did not. 384. Did Mr. Reed ever suggest to you the desirability of making a test of the coaldust in Ralph's Mine?— No. 385. At the Thames, when you met Mr. Reed prior to his visit to the West Coast, did you make him understand that you were going to prosecute the company?—l handed him a copy of the statement of the case and Mr. Miller's opinion. 386. Did you say anything to lead him to suppose that there was not going to be a prosecution? —He understood perfectly clearly what were the contents of the letter. 387. Mr. Newton.] Mr. Reed in his evidence said that when he wrote to you in December last, I think, asking you to ascertain and get information regarding the burnings from gas, that you replied that the union would give you no information: is that correct?— From memory, I think it is so. 388. From memory can you say whether you did apply?— Yes. 389. By letter? —No, I came to Huntly and interviewed the manager, and met several of the officials in the ordinary way and made inquiries from them.
B. BENNIE.
43
C—l 4.
390. By " officials " you mean officials of the union?- -Yes, 1 should say so. 391. Was that the present union? —I thirk it would be. 392. Do you know any of the officials whom you applied to? —1 think 1 asked Mr. Dixon. I do not know that I knew any others. 393. Are you quite sure about it? —I wou',' . ' say positively that 1 did, but 1 think 1 did. 1 certainly did not write to them. 394. But if they say no application was made yu'i w >uid ii"t deny that?—No, 1 would not. 395. Mr. Tanks.] In regard to monobel and mo;;nbel No. 1, do yon allege that you were deliberately hoodwinked and deceived in regard to that?— i would not use that language. 396. Was it not a simple question of misunderstanding in regard-to the numeral ? ; —1 did not know there was a No. 1. I accepted the word " monobel." 1 had not a list of the permitted explosives. I understood Mr. Bishop to say it was a permitted explosive, and 1 added it to the list. I was satisfied that that was what he meant, and lie evidently, if Le knew, omitted to say No. 1. 397. You saw the vouchers in regard to compensation payments?— Certainly. 398. I think it is your duty to scan those vouchers? —It is my duty to carefully examine them, and if there is a mistake made I have to make it up. Only recently there was a mistake in a payment, and I received a demand from the Department to pay the amount into the Public Account. 399. So that there is no doubt that you did read that paper and know at the time that Willcox had been burned by gas?— That is so. 400. Have you an}' evidence or anything to suggest to you that Mr. Fletcher was deliberately concealing these cases from you? —No, I have no reason to think so. He freely gave me the lists of persons who had received minor injuries at the mine. The description of the injuries for which the claims on the relief fund were made indicated that they were such as might be caused on the football field or on the street on a Saturday night. If I were suspicious I asked for a return from Mr. Fletcher, knowing that he would investigate every claim. 401. You said that you had a conversation with Mr. Reed at the Thames in regard to the mine, and that he had his opinion and you had yours? —That was at the Auckland Exhibition. 402. Did you convey any part of your conversation to Mr. Fletcher? —No. 403. Or to any one else connected with the company?— No. 404. Did I understand you to say that the old fan is sufficient to supply ventilation required in the mine at the present time: was that your opinion?— Prior to this accident I held that opinion. 405. And I think you did not yourself ask that the company should install a new fan?— No. 406. Mr. Bennie, in your opinion is it possible to have a sudden inrush of gas sufficient to cause this explosion in a very short time? —Yes, I remember one such inrush at the Kaitangata Mine about 1886. 407. That occurred quite suddenly?— Yes. 408. Mr. Wilford.] You stated that when Mr. Heed and you were at the Thames there was a letter in front of you, I presume, addressed to the Under-Secretary, containing Mr. Miller's opinion?—No, my memo, had gone to the Under-Secretary, and 1 showed Mr. Reed my copy. 409. Then you had forwarded the contents of Mr. Miller's opinion to the Under-Secretary?— Yes. 410. I think you told Mr. Reed that the opinion was against the prosecution?—l showed him the letter and he glanced over- it, and he asked me " Is Mr. Miller a reliable mining solicitor? " and I said " Yes." 411. You always considered Ralph's Mine a safe mine? —Yes. 412. That was your opinion, and you are a man of many years' experience, and yet it blew up?—So did Kemble, and Brunner, and Kaitangata. 413. They were considered by you to be safe mines : you considered Ralph's a safe mine, and yet it blew up ? —Yes. 414. You were asked by Mr. Napier whether Mr. Reud gave you the impression that he thought there would be such a disaster as occurred at Ralph's Mine, and you said " No "?—He gave it to the Under-Secretary. The Under-Secretary did not give it to me. I have no knowledge of that. 415. It is on the Under-Secretary's file. You know that Mr. lieed wrote to the UnderSecretary and predicted it?—He says so. 416. Have you not seen it?— Officially I do not know what Mr. Reed wrote to the UnderSecretary, unless my attention is drawn to it. 417. Your attention has been drawn to it by the Commission. Do you want to trifle with this Commission? I ask you do you know that Mr. Reed predicted this catastrophe at Ralph's Mine to the Under-Secretary?—From the file placed before the Commission I understand it is so. 418. Is it not also a fact that as late as the 12th September, 1914, the date of the disaster, Mr. Blow wrote to the Minister of Mines as follows : " The above [that is, a wire from Mr. Bennies clerk reporting the accident] is the only intimation so far received, but doubtless Mr. Bennie will wire a further report after he reaches Huntly. This shows that the fears of the Inspecting Engineer were well grounded." Do you know that that is a fact? —I see you are reading it from the file. 419. Did you know that Mr. Reed had written to the Under-Secretary predicting this disaster in six letters, four of which directly predicted it? Did you know that he had predicted it?— No. 420. If Mr. Reed were to predict a disaster lie would predict it to his superior officer?— That is so.
C—l 4
44
[b. bennie.
4:21. There is nothing extraordinary in his not predicting it to you?— No. 422. You realize in this inquiry that if Mr. Fletcher is to blame, you are'!—No, I do not. 423. You are Inspector for the district? —Yes. 424. And you have got to see that that mine is properly worked? —To see that it is run according to the Act and the regulations. 425. Therefore if it is shown that Mr. Fletcher did not run the mine according to the Act and regulations, are you not to blame?— No. 426. You do not realize, then, that if Mr. Fletcher has failed to run the mine according to the law, then you have failed in your duty? —No, I do not know that. It means that he has failed. 427. And yet you are the Inspector who has to see the law carried out? —Yes. 428. You said that the lamps which Mr. Reed had given you, and which you brought down in the train, had leaked? —Both of them did. 429. Do you know that it is a fact that Mr. Wood and Mr. Duncan have been using these same lamps in the mine since? —They have been recharged. 430. At any rate, do you know that-those two lamps which you have been making so little of have been used by Mr: Duncan and Mr. Wood? [Mr. Wood interjected that he used one of the lamps, but Mr. Duncan did not.] 431. Well, do you know that Mr. Wood used one?—No, I did not know that. 432. In regard to the question about monobel, you believed that monobel was a permitted explosive?— From what Mr. Bishop said to me in the presence of Mr. Fletcher I accepted it as a permitted explosive and added it to the list. 433. Then you did not know that monobel with a numeral was a permitted explosive, but that monobel without the numeral was not?—l had not a list of the permitted explosives: Mr. Keed lent me his. 434. Then you did not know ?—I did not know. .435. You were misled? —I was misinformed. And misled '—Misinformed. 437. When you are going to inspect a mine do you send a telegram to say you are coming? — Once or twice I have done so, when there was a serious or fatal accident. I send word to the manager and the miners' inspector. 438. Mr. Macassey.~\ When you took Mr. Miller's opinion you prepared a statement of the facts upon which you asked his opinion : did you also see him personally?— Yes. 439. And what further facts did you lay before him? —That I had discovered gas in No. 7 south and No. 7 north, which was adjacent to the scene of the accident, and that on the morning of my inspection, after the accident, it was reported to be all clear by the examining officer, but Mr. Fletcher and I found a trace of gas over the timbers, although there was a sufficient current of air sweeping through the drive. 440. Mr. Dowgray .] I think you stated, Mr. Bennie, that you discovered gas three times in the old workings during your inspections this year?— Yes. 441. I believe you visited this mine eight times this year? —Six inspections, and two visits to the office to get some information for reports which I wished to make. 442. On one occasion you made two inspections : they occupied you two days?— Yes. 443. How many times did you visit the old workings in the course of those six visits to the mine? —Two or three. 444. So that on each visit to the old workings you discovered gas?—No, in several places where I was. 445. You told the Commission that you discovered gas in the old workings three times?— Yes. 446. And that it was removed afterwards? —Yes. [Witness refers to diary and explains same to Mr. Dowgray.] 447. On the 2nd July you visited the south side of No. 7 and found gas there; on the same day you visited No. 7 north and found gas again; in the Little dip section, old workings, you could find no trace of it. Out of three places, then, in the old workings you discovered gas in two places? —Yes. 448. On the 14th July, in No. 7 south, you found gas in the same place where you had previously discovered it? —Yes. .449. On the other visits, apart from these, you found gas recorded in the mine report-book? —Yes. 450. On the 24th August you report gas again in connection with Kelly's case?— Yes. 451. That is, on every visit you have made to the old workings during this year you have discovered gas in some place or another ?—Yes. 452. And you have only visited the old workings twice?— Yes, according to my diary. 453. In regard to your reply to Mr. Napier as to whether Mr. Reed had officially communicated with you, did he unofficially communicate with you in regard to this mine at any time during this year ?—No, I cannot say that he communicated with me in reference to the working of the mine. 454. In regard to the dangerous nature of the mine and the conditions as to safety-lamps ? Ea.rlier in the year, when he asked me to get a report from Mr. Fletcher. I now say that we had a conversation in reference to that, and that with my personal knowledge of the mine, and in view of the fact that I was the responsible officer and had no authority to accept instructions from him, I preferred my own judgment. 455. You said therefore that in your opinion there was no occasion for alarm in connection with this mine?—l thought so..
45
C—l 4.
B. BENNIE.
456. In your letter to the Under-Secretary dated the 7th August you said that even if the prosecution against the company were not successful it would have the moral effect of producing stricter supervision?—-Yes, that it would produce more effective supervision. 457. If everything was all right before, why the uneasiness or anxiety for stricter supervision i —I think I explained that before. In No. 6, where the coal-cutting machines were, there were some brattice-cloths hanging caross the road for the distribution of the air into the individual places. These were torn, and a great deal of leakage was taking place There was smoke hanging in some of the places. On measuring the air-returns from that section I found there was something like 800 cubic feet per man returning, and I desired to draw the manager's attention to the fact that stricter supervision was necessary. 458. Did you not also tell us that one of the reasons was that you thought another underviewer should be enrployed to examine the mine?—l did not know that 1 had said it to you, but I had held that opinion, because that mine is as much as 1 can walk through from 9 o'clock to 4 o'clock, and it is more than one uuderviewer can pass through and examine every place, as he is expected to do, and generally supervise the underground workings. 459. What did you mean to convey to this Commission when in reply to Mr. Macassey you said that you had a brother-in-law who was assistant manager in this mine: did you wish to convey the impression that he was an addition to the staff?—He was regarded as a reserve official, and whenever the manager was in want of an underviewer he was made underviewer in Ralph's Mine so as to comply with the law. 460. You did not mean to sa}- that lie was an addition to the staff already provided I —No. 1 know from my own knowledge that he knew the mine thoroughly. 461. In connection with Willcox's case, you knew that he was burned by gas in the Extended Mine?—Willcox and Conn were both burned i.n the Extended Mine. 462. Only one certificate had "burned by gas" on it? —No, Willcox's and Kelly's both had that. 463. You stated that it was quite possible for the gas in No. 5 bord to have come from an inrush : did you mean that that inrush could have taken place between the time of the deputy's examination and the hour of the men entering in there ?—No, I did not make any reference as to whether there had been any examination or not. 464. Do you think it is possible for an inrush to have taken place between the examination of the deputy and the men travelling to work I —lt would be possible, but very improbable. I would like to call the Commission's attention to one or two circumstances. On the plan there is a fault line running on the lowest side of No. 5 section. The bords from No. 6 and 7 were driven up to the fault and stopped there. That accounts in all probability for the reason why those bords were not connected. The line of resistance to the fault, which you know is a conveyer of gas, was only a short distance. If both falls took place in No. 5 bord, which appears probable, it may just have given the connection to this line of fault, and therefore have allowed the gas to come in suddenly into No. 5 and 6 bords. 465. That line would be shown in the Little dip also?— Not necessarily. 466. In regard to this plan which Mr. Reed has marked in green ink : in reply to a question by Mr. Napier you stated that the door leading to No. 6 bord would not be quite tight, and the ventilation from that door would be sufficient to ventilate this section ?—1 did not say that it would be sufficient to adequately ventilate that bord though. 467. Would not any leakage from that bord go straight out of No. 6 bord and enter the return, instead of going into 4 and 5 : the return airway is immediately at the bottom of No. 6 —you said the height was 10 ft.?— There is 140 square feet there, with 10 ft. velocity that would give 1,400 cubic feet of air passing per minute. 468. There is no fall in No. 6?— No. 469. There is a fall in No. s?—Yes. 470. Any leakage from that bord would go down into the return airway, and not into bords Nos. 4 and s?—lt would be a kind of diffusion. It certainly would find its way straight down the bord, but there would be no perceptible velocity, and it would be in the form of diffusion. It would mix slowly with the gas. 471. Do you mean to suggest that the amount of air scaling through that door would be sufficient to diffuse the gas accumulated in Nos. 4 and 5 bords? —No, under normal conditions the leakage through that door would not adequately ventilate those places, but there would be a diffusion of sufficient air into the still air to keep the places safe provided there was no inrush of gas. 472. To keep Nos. 4 and 5 bords clear? —There is nothing before the Commission to show that any gas was coming from 3 and 4. The evidence has gone to show that the fall was at No. 5 bord, and that in all probability the gas exuded from over that fall. 473. Any leakage from that door should go straight down No. 6 bord? —Yes, but it would not sufficiently ventilate that section. 474. The Chairman.] To adequately ventilate that section would require stoppings or brick, or wood, or canvas? —Yes. 475. Mr. Napier.] Even though the whole of those bords might not be adequately ventilated, would not the ingress of sufficient air tend to constant diffus:ou in those bords by the leakage from the door so as render practically harmless the mixture inside?— That depends upon the quantity of gas given off and the quantity of air coming through. A little leakage would have kept the place sweet if there had been no gas coming in.
C—l 4
46
jl). WEAK.
Daniel Weak, Deputy, sworn and examined. (No. 4.) The Secretary read to witness the evidence given by him before the Coroner at the inquest, as follows: ■— "Daniel Wear, sworn, saith : I am employed in Ralph's Mine as inspector of old workings, and have been so for the last four years. 1 have an assistant named Hughes. It takes me six days to examine all the places—that is, to get round. A place would only be inspected once a week. During the last four years there has not been a great lot of gas found in the old workings. About four months ago there was more gas than usual in No. 7 south (marked No. 4on plan), i went and reported it to the under-manager and he brought down the manager to see it. The gas was removed that night. I put in the report I made [Exhibit N]. It was on a Monday. I think the fan had been stopped on the Sunday night, and that would allow gas to accumulate. That is the only time within the last six months that 1 have found gas in any quantity in the old workings. There have been other occasions when there were small quantities of gas in the old workings. Any such would be reported in the book. The gas on this occasion was caused by a little fall from the roof. The gas on other occasions has always been caused by falls. I think an inspection of once a week is sufficient. Gas could accumulate in dangerous quantities in a week. It could never be told when there is going to be a large fail releasing a large quantity of gas. It might happen that a heavy fall would drive it to where men were working with naked lights. There would have to be a large quantity of gas before it could be driven that distance. 1 have been in the mines working for forty-seven years. I have been in the Huntly mines for twenty-eight years. The only other explosion 1 have known was when Kelly was burnt a little while ago. During that time I have known heavy falls to occur in the roof of the old workings. The occasion I reported—23rd March, 1914—was the largest quantity of gas 1 have known in all my time. The weekly inspection of old workings has been going on since Mr. Fletcher came —about four years. I had no reason to anticipate any danger. I would call it a dry mine. I would not call it very dusty. On each occasion I have reported gas steps were immediately taken to remove the gas. [The place where the ga's "Was found is marked on the plan ' Wear's find of gas.'] During the last three weeks there has been no gas at all in the old workings. There is nothing to prevent any of the miners going into the old workings. I have once seen miners in the old workings where they had no right: this was a few months ago. This was in the little dip. I warned the man back or I would report him. It is not customary for any miners to go into the old I went down in the first cage on the 12th September at 7 a.m. Igo down first cage every morning. I went to the cabin near the bottom for a few minutes, and then I went down the little-dip road. 1 was at No. 3 pump, little dip, taking my clothes oft when J heard a roar. My mate Hughes was with me. I heard a roar, and a rush of wind struck us in the face. The wind then seemed to change round to the back of us and knocked me down, putting out my safety-lamp, but not Hughes's. I did not see any flame. I did not hear any explosion or fall. Subsequently I got out by Ralph's shaft. I was not injured, except a few bruises. Young assisted me for some time. If Young says there has been gas in the old workings recently than ever before I do not agree with it. There were no shots fired that morning;. The stone workers would have been shooting if they had got to work. The explosion took place before they got to work. I have been down the mine since the explosion. I have been in the old workings since the accident, but not in the old workings near No. 5 and No. 6. I always looked upon the mine as a safe one. "By Mr. Tunks : I always used the safety-lamp in making my examinations. I had found nothing previously where the gas was found on the 23rd March. I have never found gas in the old workings other than from falls that have touched a small seam in the roof. The falls in the old workings have not been of a frequent occurrence, but at long intervals. I have never found a fall in the old workings sufficiently large to drive gas out to where the men would be working. The nearest point that the bodies were found to the old workings would be a considerable distance. I don't think gas from the old workings could have reached these men. You can get into the old workings from No. 3 and No. 5. To do that you would have to go through doors or fences. All the other communications are stopped off. The place where the gas was found in the old workings is blocked off the travelling-way in No. 5. It could not possibly have reached the travelling-way. The possibility of gas going from the old workings into the present travellingways or present workings would be very remote. "By Mr. Bennie : There appears to have been no disturbance in the mine near where the gas was discovered in the old workings. I have found a little gas there since the 23rd March, 1914. I have been down the mine since the explosion. The stopping, near where the gas was found, into the main road is intact [marked ' No. 4 ' on plan]. There is no indication or any sign of any explosion having been near there. By Mr. Napier : From what I have seen since the explosion I am satisfied that the explosion did not take place near where the quantity of gas was found in March. " Re-examined : I have found gas in the old workings near the little dip. Three men went into the old workings in the little dip to bring out rails, and they carried naked lights. 1 inspected the little dip on the 9th September, three days before. I have no theory of my own as to the explosion. As far as my knowledge goes there must have been gas there to cause an explosion, and that gas must have come in contact with a naked light. There must have been gas somewhere in the locality of the explosion. I cannot form any idea as to where that gas came from. The deputies would not inspect the old workings in the little dip that morning. I cannot say if they were or not. "By jury: I hold a fireman's and deputy's ticket by examination. I have held it for four or five years. "By Mr. Tunks: When I examined No. 7on the Wednesday it was all safe. I have found gas in the little dip ; not on the 9th September—it would be five or six weeks ago."
47
C—l 4.
J). WEAK.
1. The Chairman.] That is the evidence given by you at the inquest before the Coroner: is it correct? —Yes. 2. Mr. Wilford.] I understand, Mr Wear, you have had considerable experience in mines?— I have never done anything else. 3. For some forty-odd years?— Forty-seven years. 4. But you have been on this new work only for the past few years?—l have been engaged examining the old workings for the past twelve months, but off and on for four years. 5. Now, I understand that it was your duty to go round the old workings to look for fire and not to look for gas?— That is right. 6. And I suppose that what you had not to do you did not do?—lf I thought there was gas I would examine for it. 7. I am speaking generally : you usually tested for fire and not for gas? —Yes, speaking generally. 8. Did you do more than you had to do? —Yes, on occasions if there was anything like gas about. 9. That is to say, if your suspicions were aroused?— Yes. 10. If they were not, you kept on going?—l kept on going. 11. Have you ever had any special training in testing for gas?— No. 12. Have you ever passed an examination in gas testing?— No. 13. Do you know that there is such an examination in New Zealand which men can pass if they desire?— Yes. 14. And have you never tendered yourself for that examination ?—T thought of going to Auckland at the Rxhibition time for it, but I did not. 15. Supposing you were standing in a bord the height of this room : how could you test that bord for gas?—l would test it as far as I could reach. 16. Show me?— Something like that. [Witness is handed a lamp, and demonstrates with 'same.] 17. Do you mean to say you could see the flame of that lamp if you kept it there [at arm's length above his head]? —There it is. 18. You could not see it at all if you put it up like that?— No. 19. Would you get a line with your eye between the rim and the flame? —I do not know. 20. You say you do not take a line between the rim and the flame, but you simply look at the flame: is that right?— Yes. 21. Can you get a 3-per-cent. test in that way, let alone 1|- or 2?— l think so. 22. What height are you ?—About 5 ft. Bin. 23. And if you went into any bord that was over 7 ft. high you could not test it?— Yes, and T have done so. 24. How ?—Where there has been a fall. 25. Where there has been no fall, I mean? —No, I have not. 26. And how many bords over 7 ft. are there in the part of the mine which you have to go through? —That I could not tell you. 27. Miles of them? —I could not tell you. 28. Are there miles of them? —I do not know. 29. Would you deny that there are miles? —No, I would not. 30. Then, if there are miles or bords in the part of the mine that you had to inspect, and there were no falls in those miles, you never inspected them?—l never inspected them unless they were low bords. 31. That applies to those over about 7 ft. ? —Providing the air is good. 32. If the air is bad how do you inspect a place 20 ft. high?—l do not inspect it at all. 33. Are there ladders provided for inspection purposes in those high places?— Not in the old workings. There are one or two on top of these falls, but that is all. 34. Are there any ladders provided in that section at all for inspection purposes?— Yes. 35. How many—one? —Do you mean in the old workings or in that place? 36. In that place?—l know nothing about them. 37. In the old workings?— About four or five. 38. And how many miles of bords? —Well, I do not know whether you would call it " miles." 39. How many miles of bords do you have to inspect?—l do not know. 40. Between one and twenty miles?— Two or three miles. 41. Then this Commission can understand that it was purely voluntary on your part whether you should look for gas?— That is quite correct. 42. As a matter of fact you had the right to please yourself?— Yes, I could please myself. 43. And you did?—l did. 44. Did you ever get any gas except where there was a fall—be careful, because I am going to ask you about Molesworth? —Yes, once. 45. Where was that? —In what was called Dooley's dip, No. 8 section. 46. When was that? —A long while ago. 47. How long ago?—l had not started inspecting the old workings then: it is, I suppose, about twelve months ago. 48. The. Chairman.'] Is that in the old workings?—lt was in an old place—there are new places and old places. 49. Mr. Wilford.] Will you please explain the difference between " old workings" and "disused workings"?—l would call them all "old workings" where the men were not getting the coal. 50. There is no difference in your evidence between " disused " and " old " workings? —Yes.
C—l 4.
48
[D. WEAK.
51. Was there a large quantity of gas on this occasion when you found it?—No, you could just tell there was gas there. 52. Did David Molesworth, jun., ever call your attention to a large name some feet long at any time?—No, never. 53.. Did Robert Neil ever call your attention to such a thing?— Never. 54. Now, when you were giving evidence at the Coroner's inquest you told Mr. Napier that vuu always tested for gas from the beginning where your common-sense told you gas might be. What indications would make you test for gas?— H the air was bad 1 would test for it. 55. That is the sole reason? —Yes. 56. Do you mean where there was a bad smell or it was stuffy? —Yes, and if there was not sufficient air. 57. Then you test it? —Yes. 58. Now, do you remember No. 6 bord in the little dip where Martin's body was found, No. 43?— Yes. 59. And you know that No. 6 bord runs almost directly north and south?— Yes. 60. Do you know that south and westward slightly, where Martin's body was found, the old fall is in No. 5 bord? —Yes, 1 know where the old fall is. but I was not sure where Martin's body was found. I know where the door was blown out, though I cannot put a number to the bord. [Sketch-plan discussed by witness with Mr. Wilford.] 61. When were you at the spot marked by me on ilie plan [Exhibit AA] with a W, prior to the explosion? —On the 9th September, 1914. 62. You were last at the spot marked W on the 9th September, before the explosion?— Yes. 63. Since the accident have you been to that fall? —Yes. 64. When?— Last Wednesday or Thursday. 65. How near to that cross [on Exhibit AA] are the vails lying?— They are a good bit off there now; they have all been lifted out of those bords. '66? When you were there last week they were there?—l could not say. Would you deny it?— No. 68. Before the explosion were the rails where the cross W is marked on the plan [Exhibit AA]? —They might have been there. 69. Where were the rails?—l could not say. Most of the rails were lifted out of those bords. 70. When?—l could not say. 71. Would you deny that they were there last Wednesday?—l do not know. 72. Did you see them there?—No, I did not. 73. Now, if Mr. Bishop was correct in the evidence he gave at the Coroner's inquest, and Martin entered this No. 6 bord, it looks as if he was at the rails? —That does not say he was going to take them out of that bord. 74. Do you not say that Martin was going to get rails? —I did not. 75. Did you hear any one say so?—I did not. 76. Do you know whether it is a fact that on the Saturday morning of the disaster Martin was going to get rails from the little dip?—l do not know. 77. You never heard anything said by Brownlie on that point?— No. 78. In the course of your duty j-ou go into No. 5 bord at least once a week? —Yes. 79. And you tell the Commission you do not know whether any rails were in that No. 5 bord? —1 would not say; there might be rails lying about the sides. 80. You evidently do not know what there was in that No. 5 bord? —I do not go to see what is lying about the roads. 81. You do not look for rails or gas, and you cannot tell me whether there were any rails on that fall three days before the explosion?— There were no rails to be removed, not down in that place; there were one or two through at the side. 82. If they were there last week j r ou did not see them? —If they were put down I. might see them, but if they were lying at the side I might not notice them. 83. Was the old fall gassy on the 9th?--No. 84. Have you seen it since the explosion, and do you know that it is gassy?— Yes, I do. 85. Very gassy? —I could not say that it is very gassy, but I would not say it is not. 86. Would you say that it is possible that there has been measured in that district over 200,000 cubic feet of gas?—l quite believe it. 87. Well, the old fall is gassy. Am I not right in saying that the new fall in No. 6 bord, in which Martin's body was lying, is not gassy? Have you ever seen any sign of gas in No. 6?— I never examined it —the new fall. 88. You told me that you always looked for gas when you smelt it? —Yes. 89. You never noticed any condition there which led you to desire to test for gas?— When I went in there last week I did not go to examine that new fall for gas. 90. Why?—l went in with the under-manager. 91. When you were there on Wednesday you never noticed there was any gas? —I did not go down to it. 92. How close were you to it?* —8 or 10 yards away. 93. If it were gassy you would know 8 or 10 yards away? —No. I did not go for any examination last Wednesday. 94. Was there any gas there at all?—No, I do not think so; but I am not sure. 95. You cannot tell me whether there was any gas there? —No, I cannot; I was not there to see. 96. On your tour of inspection do you ever take any air-test? —-No. 97. Caii you?— No.
49
a—l 4
P. WEAR
98. Could you read an anemometer? —No. 99. To your knowledge, have the old workings which you traverse ever been air-tested during the last twelve months? —I could not say. They might have been and I might not know. 100. Have you ever heard of it?— No. 101. Will you tell me whether the door which is the sntrance to No. 6 bord, and is also the way out from No. 6 bord into the travelling-road from No. 5, has ever had a lock on it, to your knowledge? —No, not to my knowledge. 102. Is No. 6 in the old workings?— Yes. 103. Then the door which is at one end of an old working has had no lock on it, to your knowledge ?—No. 104. Is the other end of that bord fenced ofi?—l do not think so. 105. Do you not know it is not? —No. 106. And never has been? —No. 107. I just want for one moment to transport you to No. 5 section where it meets the main haulage-drive : you know where that is ? —Yes. 108. No. 5 section from the haulage-road to the jig is a travelling-road? —Yes. 109. Did you notice after the explosion that a skip had been smashed to matchwood against the opposite side of the travelling-road?— That I could not say; there are so many skips broken. 110. Was there a large portion of a cable chain flung or hurled at least 40 yards down the haulage side of that travelling-road?— Yes, I noticed that chain. 111. Was that the chain round the wheel, or the one fastened by the staple?—lt would be round the wheel with the brake on, but I do not know if that was the same chain. 112. Did you notice the chain? —Yes. 113. Are the old roads which you inspect dusty?—l could not say that they are. 114. As a matter of fact you do not bother your head about them?—l do not take much notice of the dust. 115. Is there any dust in it? —There is a little. lie. In some places more than others, I suppose?— Where there are only two men they do not kick up much dust. 117. Are there some places in the mine 28 ft. and 30 ft. high?—2B ft. high. 118. Mr. Napier. .] I want you to try and let us clearly understand this question about rails. You said in answer to Mr. Wilford that the rails have all been lifted out of the bord, but you could not say when. Do you mean some considerable time ago?— Yes, but there might be an odd one lying there yet. 119. And with the exception of an odd rail or two there was no quantity of rails there? —No. 120. It is usual, is it not, when workings are disused to leave the rail? —Yes. 121. You examined the old fall when you visited it on the 9th? —Yes. 122. And you say there was no trace of gas on that day?—No trace at all. 123. Now, about the absence of an air-test : if the mine is well ventilated can you not, with your forty-seven years of experience as a miner, recognize whether the air is pure or not?— I was quite satisfied with the air myself going round there. 124. Is it necessary to take an air-test when you are satisfied with the air? —I did not, but somebody else might have done so many times. 125. Did any one ever suggest to you that an air-test was necessary? —No. 126. The mine was well ventilated, was it not? —Yes, very well ventilated. 127. There was a much larger quantity of air than what is required by the Act? —Yes. 128. And you say that, with the exception of once about twelve months ago, when you could just faintly tell there was gas, there never has been gas detected in Dooley's dip?— No. 129. Now, the ordinary ways in the mine are about the average height—about 6 ft. or 7 ft. ? —Yes. 130. When Mr. Wilford said there might be two or three miles of bords over 7 ft. high was that right?—No, not that we examined. 131. Now, if there is no fall in the bord and it is well ventilated, is it possible for any dangerous quantities of gas to collect that you would not see? —I have never seen any gas there. 132. Nor detected its presence? —No. 133. Have you any doubt that if, as has been suggested in the questions of Mr. Wilford, there was a large accumulation of gas over 7 ft. high, have you any doubt that you could have discovered it?—l think I could find it. 134. Can the gas remain absolutely stationary in a ventilated passage even over 7 ft. high and not mix with the other air? —I should not think so. 135. Mr. Tttnks.] How long is it since you first made a test for gas—l mean in your mining experience and not in this mine? —About thirty years ago. 136. Were you told to test for it?— Yes. That was in the Old Country. 137. Did you use safety-lamps there? —I never used anj'thing else until I came out here. 138. And with what class of lamp did you test for gas in the Old Country? —The Davey lamp. 139. Then I may take it that you have been testing for gas off and on for the last thirty years? —Yes. 140. The No. 6 bord at the other end was not fenced : does it connect with the old workings? —Yes, the old workings. 141. When you went down last week you say you saw the new'fall, but did not go in there?— No, we did not. 142. You went down for a special purpose? —Yes, to see the old fall. 143. And that was all? —Yes. 144. It was not part of your round for examining the old workings? —No,
7—C 14.
C—l 4.
50
[d. wear.
145. It was a special visit to the old falls?— Yes. 146. I think these old workings constitute the return airway, do they not? —Yes. 147. The Chairman.] You say you hare tested constantly for gas with a Davey lamp. What percentage of gas is required to produce the first indication of gas on a safety-lamp ? —From 2 to 2 \ per cent. 148. What are your specific duties in regard to the inspection of these old workings? —Looking to see if thej' were heating. 149. You say you tested for gas : did you lest for gas only when you saw a fall, or did you make a practice to do so? —We made a practice of it when the air was bad. 150. Did you make a systematic test?—We tested properly. 151. Every time you went through those old workings did you test for gas as well as to see if there was any heating?— Yes. 152. You did noT; make any test above 7 ft. ?—Only on top of a fall. 153. Did you make any tests otherwise?—No, only where there was a fall we tested on the top of it. 154. When were you last through those old workings? —On the 9th September. 155. And the accident happened on the 12th? —Yes. 156. Did you make any report to the manager or anybody else of your inspection these times? —Just in the report-book. 157. The Chairman reads report dated the 9th September, 1914, in report-book as follows : — " Ralph's Mine. —I, the undersigned, have examined the old workings and return airways, limbs heading, and little dip, north section, and found all safe. No sign of heating. Ventilation good. —D. Wear." That is your report : who wrote it? —The man who was with me. 158. There is nothing at all about gas in this report. Can you say whether you made any examination or test for gas? —Yes; that was the morning we were on top of the old fall, the 9th, just before the accident. 159. Did you make any special examination for gas? —Yes, on the 9th. 160. But there is nothing in the report in regard to gas?—We only refer to gas when it is found. 161. Mr. DowgrayJ] What were you doing before you became an inspecting deputy?—Shotfiring. 162. Where was it customary for the men on pay-Saturdays to receive their instructions as to where they were to go to work?—At the cabin at the shaft-bottom. 163. That was on pay-Saturday morning?—On any morning. 164. You have been at work on pay-Saturday morning? —Yes, and we generally get our instructions there. 165. If you were to. get your instructions there, which would be the quickest way to get to the little dip I—To1 —To go right down the road to the dip. 166. You say that you could see the gas when holding up your lamp as you showed us? —Yes. 167. Where were you working thirty years ago? —At the Wellington Pit, where the White Haven disaster took place. 168. What kind of lamps were used there thirty years ago? —The little Davey lamp. 169. Did the miners work with the Davey lamps?— Yes. 170. What age are you? —Fifty-six. 171. And you tell us that thirty years ago you were in a position to test for gas?— Yes, I knew what gas was. 172. Is it customary in Northumberland for miners to test for gas?— Where I came from the first thing a man does when he goes into his place in the morning is to examine for gas and sound the roof. 173. Does the deputy not make that examination? —Yes. 174. What age were you then? —Nearly twenty-eight. 175. There are two of you travelling the old workings? —Yes. 176. Do you both travel together?—We used to take bord and bord—one went up one bord and the other the next. 177. So that you did not travel together at all? —We did not both go up the one bord, but met at the top. 178. In that case it was only at certain points you met one another? —Yes, that is true. 179. I think you stated to Mr. Wilford that there were two or three miles of old workings?— Yes. 180. Would it take you a week to examine two or three miles?—We would travel up and down each bord. 181. Are some of these blind bords? —Yes. 182. And if gas accumulated in them how would ventilation get up there?— The gas would be shifted by means of brattice-cloth. 183. Was that done in the old workings?— Yes. 184. How often? —Whenever we got gas there. 185. Do you ever get any gas in the blind bords? —No, I cannot say that we do. 186. There was never any necessity for arranging special ventilation then? —Not in my time. 187. Then, in the blind bords about 14ft., loft., and 20ft. high you just simply walked into them and walked out again : there were no fires? —Yes, that is so. 188. There might have been gas there, but you would not know?—No, I have never seen any of it. 189. You could not say, so far as that was concerned, that there was no gas in the blind bords? —That is right.
51
e.—l4.
B. Wear.
190. You said in reply to a question that in your opinion there was the amount of air prescribed circulating round the old workings: how much is prescribed? —150 ft. per man. 191. Do you know the Act? —No. 192. How do you come to the conclusion, then, that that was the amount prescribed?—By just hearing the men talk about it. At the last examination of check inspectors there was more than the quantity . 193. Do the check inspectors ever accompany you round the old workings? —Yes, but not this last twice. 194. Have they done it recently at all?— There was one lot of check inspectors went round for about an hour one time, but not these last check inspectors : it was Jones and Patterson. 195. Does the manager ever go round the old workings?—No, the under-manager used to go there. 196. Accompanying you?—No, by himself. 197. Without your knowledge?—No, he has told me. 198. It would not be necessary to lock the door shown on the plan, because that was an ordinary travelling-road? —Yes: that is where they used to take the rails out. 199. lhat w r as the quickest road? —Yes. 200. They have to go through that door to get them on to the rope road? —Yes, it was the handiest way. 201. That was known as the travelling-road where the men were to go?—I could not say whether it was called a travelling-road. 202. You have met men travelling there? —Yes, I have seen men lifting rails when I have been in there. 203. The Chairman.] When was it that you saw the rails? —Four or five months ago. 204. Mr. Dowgray.] You noticed them lifting rails in No. 5 section? —Not in the old bords, but it is in the same section. -'205, You said, in the old workings that had been worked out? —Yes, but these bords have been worked out, and it is in the same section which they examine every day. 206. To get the rails to the foot of this section you would have to bring them that way?— Yes, it is the handiest way. 207. Mr. Brown.] You said that you did not receive special instructions to test for gas?— That is right. 208. You made an adequate examination of the old workings?— Yes. 209. Is it not the duty of every man, whether he is an official or otherwise, to report anything dangerous at all in a mine? —I should think so. 210. Then would there be any real necessity to tell you specially to examine for gas?— Well, I should think there would, but I know I was never told to test for gas. 211. You think that notwithstanding that it was your duty, and the duty of every workman, to report everything that was dangerous, it was also somebody-else's duty to tell you to do that?—l would report whenever I saw danger of any kind. 212. You would do that without anybody telling you?— Yes. 213. In regard to your statement about the air being bad, can an examiner not feel the fresh air on his face as he is walking along the road? —Yes, I suppose he can. 214. And when the air was sluggish you examined for gas?— Yes, when I thought the air was bad or anything like that I tested. 215. I think you stated that you examined for gas where there were falls?— Yes, I did. 216. Are these falls removed?— No. 217. Then, you can climb on most of the falls to examine for gas? —Yes. 218. Did you ever examine anj- pothole in the roof for gas where there was no fall? —No. 219. If the high workings—l mean the bords and cut-throughs—were all the same height and ventilation was going through, would there be any likelihood of gas staying there ? —I should not think there would.
Jambs Fletcher, Mine-manager, sworn and examined. (No. 5.) Mr. Wilford: I ask leave, sir, to put in the evidence given by Mr. Fletcher before the Coroner's inquest. Evidence read by witness, as follows :— " James Fletcher, sworn, saith : I am general mining-manager for the Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), and also certificated manager under the Coal-mines Act for Ralph's Mine. I produce a copy of the plan of Ralph's Mine. I was not in charge of the mine on the 12th September last, when the accident took place. I was incapacitated. I appointed William Gowans, the underviewer, who was a qualified man, as acting-manager, and he was approved by the Inspector of Mines. Mr. Gowans was one of the victims of the explosion. The plan produced [Exhibit A] shows the workings of the mine up to the time of the last survey three months ago to the end of June. On the day of the explosion it was an off day at the mine, and the active mining in operation was at Bond's dip, Dooley's dip, No. 6 dip, No. 6, Taupiri West section, and No. 5. There were six distinct sections in the mine being worked for coal. All the rest are areas where the coal has been taken out and only pillars left : they are old workings. The plan shows the system of ventilation of the mine. The letter "D " represents wooden doors. The deputies are thoroughly acquainted with the method of ventilating the mine. If they notice anything wrong it would be their duty to immediately report it. The practice is for the whole of the workers to go down Ralph's shaft. To comply with section 42 of the Coal-mines Act the whole of the working-
C—l 4
52
J. FLETCHER.
places of the mine have to be examined by three competent persons —examining deputies holding deputies' certificates. Their duty was to go into the mine and examine all the working-places within two hours of the time when the body of men commence work. The mine was examined on the morning of the accident. I produce the three examining deputies' reports [Exhibit B] for the morning. They were found in the usual place in the mine after the explosion. The reports are in one book. The reports produced cover the whole of the working-places and travellingroads in the mine. After they have inspected the mine each morning the three of them meet at cabin No. 6 and make their report. The first man down in the morning when the mine opens would be the day-shift deputy. He goes to the telephone and telephones the examining deputies at No. 6, and the)' tell him the mine is all right. Then the men go down to mine, to the workings. If there was anything wrong the usual routine would be to stop the men. The examining deputies examine the working-places with a safety-lamp and look for gas, see that the places in their examination are all clear of gas, see that the ventilation is in good order, and see that the haulage and travelling roads are clear of falls. This would include examining the roof. Their duty was to see that the working-places and roads were left fit for men to work in. I produce a list showing the names of those who were down the mine that morning, who were lost and who were saved. There were sixty-two men down that morning, twenty-one of whom were rescued alive, but two have since died. This makes a. total of forty-three dead. There was no actual mining to be done in the mine that morning, only repairs—that is, as far as I can gather. In addition to the examining deputies there is an inspector of old workings, who has an assistant. It was a system introduced about three years ago for thoroughly examining the old workings to see that nothing unusual had taken place there from combustion, heavy falls. This is his sole work. He makes a report after every day's examination. It takes him a week to go right through the mine. I produce his report [Exhibit C], Five days' reports would constitute a report of the whole of the old working. D. Wear was the inspector. J. Darby and W. Smith are two day-shift deputies who were lost in the disaster. Gas has been found in the old workihgß»in small quantities. It is usually found in cavities formed by falls from the roof. I have never had any difficulty in dealing with the gas from the old workings. The gas is always of the same nature —CH 4 . The last report of gas is on the 17th August. "Gas diluted" means that he could not get sufficient to make a test with his safety-lamp away from the bleeder, because the ventilation is so good. In consequence of this report Mr. Bennie and I inspected this place— I think it was on the 21st August. I found the place satisfactory; there was a good current of air. As a week would elapse between the examinations of the old workings by the Inspector I would not expect any gas there unless there had been a big fall and a lot of gas suddenly let out. I consider these mines pretty free from firedamp. As the coal is of such a very hard nature I would not expect a fall, and falls are very few. On the 9th July last William Kelly, a contractor, was working in No. 6 stone drive, which is an overhead drive, to take out a big depression in the haulage-road. I produce a plan of that drive [Exhibit D]. He was working about 20 or 30 yards from a little pothole in the roof that was bleeding gas, on the fresh-air side of it. He went to the pothole to get a drink, and having a naked light on his head he ignited an accumulation of gas near the pothole. He was singed. He was off work for fourteen days, but was about the streets five days after. That particular section had been inspected before 8 o'clock on the morning of the accident and found correct. The men had been working there between 8.30 and 10.30 at the time the accident occurred. The day previous to the accident to Kelly the holing was effected between the two ends of the stone drive, and these men were engaged taking out the full opening. A good current of fresh air was going through that drive, and from the time the opening was made one of the contractors made a request to Deputy Darby to stop some of the fresh air -going in as they were complaining of the cold. That request was refused by the deputy. In my opinion, the accumulation of the gas was caused by a disarrangement of the air going in there, because the intake-pipe was partly blocked by brattice-cloth. I think they found it too cold to be comfortable, and stopped some of the ventilation. That accident was reported to the Inspector of Mines, and he read my report and marked it. Besides that accident to Kelly during the four years I have been in charge of the mine I have no recollection of any other explosion in the mine. There has certainly been no explosion in the mine during the last twelve months. I have never received any complaints of gas from the deputies or underviewers other than what was in the reports. I have had no complaints from any worker in the mine concerning gas in the mine. I have never had any reason to suspect that gas was in the mine in dangerous quantities. We have a tally-board at the surface, and one at the shaft-bottom, to show what men are working. As the men go into the cage the banksman pegs them off in numbers on the tally-board at the top, and the onsetter tallies them at the bottom. The banksman and the onsetter compare their tallies, and if they agree this is reported as the number of men who were working in the mine that day. We have no system of keeping a record of the names of the men who go down the mine. When the men come up out of the mine they are checked in the same way. In future the names of the men will be kept as safety-lamps are issued to them. Every man who goes down the mine will have a safety-lamp. The lamps will be kept on the surface. The present system will also be kept going. There are two check inspectors appointed by the union. These are S. Dixon and J. Turton. I put in a report from these inspectors [Exhibit E]. This is the only recent report [dated 27th August, 1914]. I put in a report made by the check inspectors [Exhibit F] dated 23rd May, 1914. All the matters mentioned in these reports were at once attended to. Each man is supposed to have 150 cubic feet of air per man per minute. According to these reports there were in most cases a quantity far in excess of legal requirements. The dust referred to in the report would be coaldust and stonedust. This was watered. There have been cases of incipient heating in the mine. The case was on the 26th August last. It is in my report in the old working report-book [Reports put in—Exhibit G and
i. FLETCHER.]
53
C.—l 4.
Exhibit Gl]. This was dealt with and made perfectly safe. There were charred timbers at the place. The spot on the plan marked " Heating " is where it took place. The deputy found no trace of fire-stink in the morning at 8 o'clock, but found that there was tire-stink there in the afternoon. There would only be a few of such heaps about the mine. No case of heating was reported between the 26th August and 10th September. Some weeks previously there had been heating in old Xo. 6 by the south. No gas would be created by this heating unless coal was actually burning. 1 do not think any gas thrown off by heating would cause an explosion with a naked light. On the 11th July a letter was sent to me by Mr. Bennie, Inspector of Mines, complaining of the dry coaldust. Watering has been carried on regularly on the travelling-roads since the receipt of that letter, but not on the old workings, because I did not and do not consider them dusty. I put in copy of letter sent to Mr. Bennie [Exhibit I]. The Inspector has never requested that safety-lamps be used. On one occasion—the 25th August—he suggested that it might be necessary to insist on their use. [Letter put in—Exhibit J.J Each miner carries sufficient explosives for one day—not more than 5 lb. If any are left over it is left in their working-bord in a canister they carry it in. We send down for the use of the coal-cutting machines a case containing 25 lb. ; very rarely more than this goes down at once. This is in charge of a man who takes it to the machines. It is kept in a specially constructed box. I do not think there is any chance of heating taking place at any of the working-faces. I cannot form any theory as to how this explosion occurred, as I have not been able to make a personal inspection of the mine. I believe the company carry their own insurance risks. Where the explosives were kept would be quite free from any effects of this disaster. I did not consider it necessary to use safety-lamps in this mine, and it has never been suggested to me that they should be used. " By Mr. Macassey (for Mines Department) : 1 thought the mine was a safe one and safetylamps were not necessary. Safety-lamps are used in other mines where it is considered that the mines are not safe enough to do without them. We shall have to use safety-lamps in the future. The men would rather use a naked light than a safety-lamp. I could not express an opinion as to tUI' cause of the explosion until I have made an examination. We watered the roads by scattering piping and flooding. " Q. If it was properly watered can you say how the explosion occurred? — A. I cannot answer that without further examination. " By Mr. Napier : I always considered this mine a safe mine in all respects. "By Mr. Tunks : It is not correct for Mr. Bennie to say that 'little or nothing had been done since his letter of the 30th M&y.' Watering has been carried on more or less since I have been manager, but more particularly these last two months. A man has been appointed to do it regularly. More attention was given to it after the 30th May. I also authorized the deputies in charge of each section to see all shots fired, and appointed men to shoot for the coal-cutting machines. The letter of the 30th May followed the check inspectors' report of the 23rd May. The dust on each occasion was on the travelling-way. I took it that the report referred to the difficulty in travelling. 1 produce a letter from Mr. Bennie of the 30th May [Exhibit X]. Mr. Bennie inspected the mine again on the 21st and 22nd August. I went round the working-places with him, and over the travelling-roads. Mr. Bennie did not make any further comment on the dust on that occasion. I did not understand Mr. Bennie to refer to dust in the old workings in any of his letters. If the mine had wanted safety-lamps, in my opinion, I would have put them in. My experience of the last three years has not suggested to me that the inspection of the old workings should be more frequent than every week. The heat may show itself suddenly, but it has been latent and working up from the bottom. Testing with iron rods every week would be a sufficient means of testing to see if there was any heating. The directors have never restricted me in any way when I wanted any improvements in the mine. I have never heard of a jet of water being used behind a coal-cutting machine as requested in the letter of the 30th May. I have never received any complaints from any of the men working the coal-cutting machines as to dust. " Re-examined : I understand now that the correct number of persons killed in the mine was forty-two, not forty-three. The mine is considered a cool mine. At No. 6 cabin on the main haulage-road the temperature is about 60°. At the return-air shaft the temperature is about 68°. " No question by jury. " It has been proved by investigation that where explosions have taken place in mines without the presence of firedamp the primary cause has been a blow-out shot. This is a shot that has had too much work to do or has been insufficiently tamped, and the force of the explosion has been expended outwards instead of upon the coal, causing a sheet of flame and raising a cloud of dust. Dry coaldust, very fine, becomes a highly explosive substance, and the flame from the shot explodes it. " Recalled by jury: The company had no life-saving appliances at the time of the explosion. We had the usual ambulance outfit —that is, a stretcher on the surface, an ambulance-box below, and bandages and an ambulance on the top. "By police: Life-saving appliances are only kept in New Zealand by the Waihi Goldmining Company and the Grade Junction Company. As far as I have read, more lives have been lost by their use than they have saved. A Proto apparatus is at Waihi, given to them by the Government." 1. The Chairman.'] Is there anything, Mr. Fletcher, which you would like to add to that statement before you are questioned any further?—No, sir. 2. Mr. Wilford.] Who did the watering of the roads?— Hugh Ransom, one of the victims of the explosion. 3. Was it done on the travelling-roads with a kerosene-tin and a wheelbarrow?— Yes, and by a pipe.
54
C—l 4.
[J. FLETCHER.
A. And cm the iiaulage-road I —No, in the travelling-road from No. 3 down. 5. Was No. 5 done with a pipe?—No, not No. 5. 6. Was the work done by that old gentleman ?—Yes, a portion of it: he was sixty years of age. 7. And what was the process—was a kerosene-tin put into a wheelbarrow and the contents allowed to flow on to the road ?—That was one of the processes : but I will explain to you how it was done. From the bottom of the shaft there is a falling grade to the far end of the mine. There are depressions. We run the water down from several points to collecting-holes, from which the roads are thoroughly watered. 8. Will you swear that it was watered on the morning of the explosion ?—No, I was not there. 9. Nobody can? —No, because none of the men who were lost had recorded it. 10. Were the roads watered on the morning of the explosion?—No, they could not have been. 11. Now, was John McGill on the night shift before that?— The afternoon shift, I think. 12. He used to use a bicycle-lamp for inspection purposes?— Yes, an acteylene bicycle-lamp. 13. Probably a good deal safer than a naked light?— Yes, although it was really a naked light. 14. It was a naked light, and it would not be burning like a safety-lamp? —Yes. 1 could not tell you for certain whether it was a bicycle-lamp or not. 15. Did you tell the jury at the Coroner's inquest of all the accidents from burners which had occurred in the mine? —Yes, as far as 1 know. 16. Are you sure?— Yes. 17. Was Massey not thirty-four days ofi about the same time as Carlyon? —1 could not tell you from memory. 18. Do you know anything of Massey? He received £16 compensation on one occasion for being thirty-four days ofi work: do you know anything about it? —I cannot remember it. I might be able to turn it up in my books. 19. You do not remember either case —Carlyon or Massey? —No, I cannot say. 20.. Did you ever know of a case when an explosion put out all the lights in a certain bord or place?— No. 21. It was never reported to you, if it occurred?— No. 22. It occurred amongst a number of men who were working in a certain part of the mine; do you know nothing of it ? —I knew there was an ignition of gas, but nobody was burnt. 23. I am referring to an ignition of gas which occurred two years ago : where was that?— It was right down Dooley's dip. 24. Is that the one which Molesworth had something to do with? —No. 25. This is a gaseous mine—you would admit that?—No, I would not admit it. 26. Then would you claim it is a mine free from gas?—l consider.it is a mine free from gas, and not a gaseous mine. 27. Now that you have said that I want to ask you this : Was Conn injured by gas-explosion? —Yes. 28. Was Willcox injured by gas-explosion?—lt was doubtful. 29. Was Ruston?—No. 30. By what, then?—He was never injured by an explosion. 31. What by, then? —He was never injured at all. 32. Is not that his name —Ruston? —He was working, but he never got any compensation for it. 33. Did you say he was injured?— No. I say Ruston was not injured. 34. You admit the case of Kelly on the 9th July, and that of Conn ?—Yes. 35. In your evidence you say he was singed?— Yes, that was what I called it. 36. Was not part of his ear burnt?—l could not tell you. 37. Did you hear of the case of a man who had put in a drill in the mine during the last twelve months, and then on going back to the hole that was drilled his light caused a flame explosion ? —No. 38. Are you aware that when William Casson was boring in Bond's dip the gas rushed out and flamed up, and that when they got the drill up they quickly plugged up the hole? —No. 39. Was that ever reported to you? —No. 40. If it occurred it was never reported to you ?—lf it occurred it was never reported to me. 41. Did you ever hear of Charles Allen boring a hole in the little dip section, and that when he returned after getting his powder to charge the hole the gas ignited and burnt him I —No, I have never heard of it. 42. Was Mr. Allen boring?— No. 43. You were here three years ago?— Yes, I have been here three years and nine months. 44. Do you remember three years ago when Skelton and Fulton were in the little dip, when the gas was lit with a lamp I —l do not remember it. 45. Do you know Frank Raynor, sen. ? —Yes. 46. Do you know that he and others were kept out of a certain part of the mine by Deputy Bill Smith ?—No. 47. Is there such a deputy?— There was. 48. Is Smith alive now? —No. 49. Is it a fact that on the 26th August, while you were going round the main haulage-road, an escape of gas was reported to you verbally by two men, one of whom was Dixon?—No. 50. You swear that?—l swear it. 51. Is it not a fact that on the 26th August it was reported to you that gas was escaping?— In one portion of the section the air was diverted through a breakdown of the brattice stopping, but not gas.
55
C—l 4.
J. FLETCHER.]
52. Was it not on account of a culvert breaking? —You can call it a culvert if you like, but it was really a brattice conduit which conveyed the air into the far places. 53. Was that reported to you on the 26th August?—l do not know the date, but I had it repaired. 54. Was there any record of that made in the mine-books? —It is in the check inspectors' report. 55. Does Mr. Bennie note that? —He may have. 56. Did you ever tell him?— No. 57. Did you ever tell Mr. Bennie that Conn had been burnt until Mr. Bennie wrote to you on the Bth January, 1914? —Yes. Mr. Bennie knew he was burnt. 58. Did you ever tell Mr. Bennie? —I never told him, but I wrote to him. 59. Can you produce your letter?— Yes, I will produce a copy of my letter. [Letter-book produced.] I produce a list dated 29th March, 1912, which contains, amongst other entries, " 16th February, 1912 : David Conn, burns to face and arms." 60. It might have been by powder or an explosion according to that?— Yes. 61. You did not say it was an explosion?— No. 62. Will you show me where you told Mr. Bennie that Conn was burnt by a gas-explosion? —No. 63. You have not got it?— No. 64. It was not until he wrote you on the Bth January of this year that you gave him the information in your letter of the 14th? —He asked me for a two-years list of men who had been burnt by powder-explosions and the ignition of firedamp. 65. Why did you keep that back? —Because they were to a great extent not serious, and I hardly thought it necessary to report them. 66. How long was Conn here?—l cannot say. 67. Is there nothing in the Coal-mines Act which requires you to report such cases?— Not unless it is a serious injury. 68. Was he not ill for over eighteen days?—l dare say. 69. Is that not a serious accident within the meaning of the Act? How many days has a man to be ill before it is considered a serious accident?—lt is not the illness. A man may get a smack in the eye and be off work for twelve months. 70. How do you decide whether a burn should be reported under the Act? —I consider the nature of the injuries received by a.man, or get a medical certificate. 71. Did you get one in that case? —We would get a verbal one. 72. But did you?—l could not tell you whether we did or not. 73. Is there anything you wish to add to that? —Nothing else. 74. Is the present shaft safe at Huntly? Are you satisfied that the mine-shaft is absolutely safe? —Yes. 75. Are you satisfied?— Yes, quite. 76. Now, before we leave the question of those injuries, will you please produce your letter of the 14th January, 1914, written to the Inspector in reply to his of the Bth? —Yes; it is as follows : "I beg to acknowledge your letter of the Bth instant regarding accidents by powderexplosions and the ignition of firedamp. In the Extended Mine there were two cases of burning by explosions of firedamp during the past two years, but not serious. The first occurred to David Conn, a shiftman. There had been a fall of roof at the face of the west heading, and he with other men had been sent to repair same. During the course of repairs slabbing had to be done, and while putting the slabs into position overhead he got his naked light, which was on his head, too far into the fall; some gas which had apparently collected in a pocket was ignited, and he received burns to both arms. Date of occurrence, 16/2/12. This place had been inspected and reported all clear just previous to the shift commencing. The next occurred to William Willcox, who was a roadman at that time. It appears that on the previous afternoon this man had commenced to lay a turn into a cross heading, which was driven in a distance of 15 yards and brattice carried right to the face. He did not complete the laying of the turn, but went in a little earlier next morning, but not before the examining deputy had inspected the place. At the point where he was laying the turn, 15 yards back from the face, an ignition of firedamp took place. Mr. Wood, the certificated manager, in company with Duncan and Assistant Deputy Wood, immediately inspected the place after the accident and found no trace of any gas. It may have collected in a roof-cavity through a disarrangement of the brattice, but Mr. Wood is of the opinion that the acetylene lamp he was carrying at the time on his head had exploded. I might add these explosions occurred during the time the small fan was doing duty, and there is no doubt—although plenty as regards quantity to comply with the Act—there was not sufficient volume to keep down small accumulations during the time the mine was not working; but since the new fan has been erected, these troubles are things of the past. Date of occurrence, 26/3/12. Regarding the burning of Alexander Reid by an explosion of blasting-powder on the 14th December, 1912, this accident was reported to you under date 16th December, 1912. In Ralph's Mine a roadman named Arthur Ruston went into an old bord in Doloev's dip, to lift some rails near the face, and he ignited a small accumulation of gas near the face with his naked light. He escaped without injury." 77. In regard to this explosion which caused the injury to Conn, it was two years to the month after the burning of Conn took place when you first reported in writing to the Inspector that it had occurred ?■—Yes. 78. That was not in the Taupiri Mine?—No, but it belongs to the Taupiri Company. lam not the manager of that mine.
C—l 4.
56
fJ. FLETCHER.
79. Is it not under the management of the same company.'—lt is under the supervision of the company, but under a different certificated manager. 80. They are both owned by the one company ?—Yes. 81. In regard to Conn, wherever he was he got burnt by gas-explosion on the 16th February, 1912, and you informed the Inspector on the 14th January, 1914? —Yes. 82 And your answer as to why you did not inform the Inspector before was ?—We did not consider it a serious accident. 83. Then why did you ever report it afterwards? —Mr. Bennie asked for some particulars regarding accidents. 84. You said in the course of your evidence at the Coroner's inquest that the 26th August, 1914, was the last date when there was incipient heating in the mine. That was the 26th August prior to the accident ?—Yes. 85. Where was that incipient heating in the mine on that date? —in the old dip to the right of the old horse-road. 86. Is that the travelling-way?— No. |Place indicated on plan by witness.] 87. Can you give it a name? —We can call it the fifth bord to the right from the air-crossing that goes over between the two doors leading into the old dip. 88. Did you put that ovit ?—Yes, we lived on il until we put it out. 89. Is it not a fact that some weeks previously there was heating in No. 6 south? —Yes. 90. Is the mine on fire anywhere now? —No. 91. Neither the Extended Mine nor this? —No. 92. Not at present?—No, there are no fires reported, nor any signs of heating at present. 93. But there are large accumulations of gas, are there not?— No. 94. Not in the old workings? —No. 95. Are the} r clear this morning? —There is an indication of one at the top of the old fall, but there are no large accumulations. ~j- 96. Is it clear of gas now?— There is an indication there, but not a large accumulation, according to my last report. 97. When was your last report made?—At 12 o'clock to-day. 1 was talking to the actingmanager. 98. Have you taken special precautions in regard to that section?— The air has been turned in there. 99. When was it done?—lt has been done all the time during the last week right up till dinner-time to-day. 100. You have nearly got it out in a week?— Less than that. 101. It has taken out all the gas?—lt has diluted it. It was not yet all diluted up till 12 o'clock to-day. They can get a trace only to-day. 102. And when did they start the diluting process —how many days have they been at it?— I think it was a week yesterday that they started. 103. Now, was any watering done on the old workings ?—No. 104. Never?— No.' 105. Are they dusty?— No. 106. What does Mr. Bennie mean in his letter to you of the 30th May, where he says little or nothing has been done to carry out his instructions ? —I do not know 1 am sure, unless he meant to put it mildly that nothing had been done. 107. Did you have any indication of that impression?— No. 108. Did you take any notice of it? —Yes, I was watering. 109. Did you speak to him or answer him?—No, I never drew his attention to the phrase. 110. Was the place where Martin was killed—if he was killed in No. 6—inspected on the morning of the catastrophe by Whorskey?—l do not know. 111. You have Whorskey's report?—l have Whorskey's report, but it does not particularize. 112. Did he say that he had inspected this place where Martin was killed?— No. 113. Then Whorskey's report does not contain any intimation, though we are told that he went through that way ?—Who 1 114. Whorskey?—l could not tell you. 115. Is No. 6 bord a working-place?— You would not call it a working-place. 116. But Mr. Napier said Whorskey inspected all the working-places; therefore Whorskey's report would not apply to that place?— Unless he was able to examine it. 117. Have you no information on that point?—l have no information on that point. 118. Now, is it not required by the law, Mr. Fletcher, that the examining deputy shall examine and inspect every place where men are going to work?— Yes. 119. Is it not also required by Special Rule 23 that when inspected such places shall be chalked ?—Yes. 120. Were these places chalked?— The working-places, yes; I have seen them. 121. I am talking about this particular morning. In No. 5 down Dooley's dip, were the places chalked where Martin was found?--] hare not been down. I do not know of my own knowledge. 122. Did Whorskey ever report gas?— Yes. 123. Will you show me when?—[The following report was read by witness from the reportbook.] "Ralph's Mine, 8 a.m., 7/7/14. —Bar. 30"7; therm. 43. Nos. 5 and 6 Sections. I. the undersigned, have between the hours of 6 and 8 a.m. examined all working-places, airways, brattice, travelling, and haulage roads in the above section, and found gas in No. 6 bord in machine section, and found the rest of places all safe. Ventilation good.— J. Whorskey." 124. Did Whorskey ever report to you as required by Special Rule 25? —No, he has not not directly.
57
C—l 4.
J. FLETCHER.
125. Did you ever call his attention to the fact that he had never reported to you in accordance with that Rule 25 I —There is no necessity to call his attention to it. 126. But did you?— No. 127. You know the door leading into No. 6 bord where Martin's body was shown on the plan? —Yes. 128. Was it used frequently or occasionally?—l could not tell you. I used it myself. 129. Can you say whether it was used frequently or seldom? —It could not have been used frequently, and only by officers of the mine. 130. Had it a lock?— No. 131. Do you know Special Rule 16?— I know there was a fence at the foot of that bord. 132. Here is Special Rule 16 : " The underviewer or his deputy shall inspect daily the doors in the main airways, and see that they are checked or doubled. No door must be propped or fastened back while on its hinges. The underviewer must appoint doorkeepers whenever necessary. Doors only used occasionally by the underviewer or his deputy must be kept securely locked, and only opened by properly authorized persons." Did you break that law?—l suppose we have. 133. Now, if any of the men had no right in that No. 6 bord where Martin's body was found, at the end of which the door was, the company had neglected to keep that door locked and observe that condition of the law: is that not so? That is clear, is it not? You see that has not been kept. On your own admission it is only used occasionally?— That is so. 134. That law has been broken?— Yes. that has probably been overlooked. 135. Do you know Rule 18, under which the other end of that bord is supposed to be fenced off? It says, "The underviewer, acting under the direction of the manager, shall see that all places not in actual use are properly fenced across the whole width, so as to prevent persons inadvertently entering the same." Was that bord properly fenced across the whole width?— Show me the bord you mean. 136. Was it fenced?—l could not tell you, because it is a bord within old workings. >37. Then, had Martin a right there?—l could not answer you. 138. Had Martin a right there? —I could not tell you whether he had a right or no right. 139. Was it fenced off to prevent him getting there?—l know the entrance to the old dip was fenced, and there was also a fence that led up to No. 5. 140. Do you suggest that there was any fence across the end of bord No. 6?— l could not tell you. 141. Do you see that it is necessary under the law?—lt is necessary, where places are disused, to stop men from going in. 142. Is this a disused place?—l call it a place from which the coal had been extracted. 143. Would it be called "disused" when a man was sent there to get rails? Would it not be part of the travelling-road?—l do not know about a travelling-road or a working-place. 144. Do not you think that any explosions which occurred in the mine were sufficient warranty for you to order safety-lamps without waiting for anybody-else's order ?—No, because I do not consider that the quantity of gas was sufficient. 145. Do you know section 56 of the Act, which provides for " Defects not provided for by express provision in the Act"—it reads as follows: "If in any respect (which is not provided against by any express provision of this Act or by any special rule) . . ."? Do you not think that under section 56 you could have ordered safety-lamps?— No. 146. We may put it this way, then: that you did not think it necessary?— Certainly I did not. 147. Did you appoint Wear to do the work he did?—l did. 148. Was there adequate air passing through bord No. 6 under Rule 3? —The law does not provide for the air to pass through the old workings. 149. The rule says, " The manager shall see that an adequate amount of ventilation is constantly produced in the mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases, to such an etxent that the working-places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mine, and the travellingroads to and from such working-places, shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be in a fit state for working and passing therein." Was No. 6in a fit state for " working and passing therein " 1 —Tt must have been, according to the last report of the deputy. 150. But look at the result?— Something extraordinary happened. 151. Have you any report of No. 6 bord, in the last twelve months prior to the accident, ever having been inspected either for gas or adequate ventilation? —Only the report of the oldworkings deputy made every week, which showed that the ventilation was adequate in there. 152. I ask whether the place has been inspected for gas?—We do not particularize each and every bord in the reports. 153. You have not any report on that particular bord—No. 6?— No. 154. What is the cubic-feet capacity of the fan at Ralph's end —about 45,000? —About 55,000 ft. per minute. 155. Is it large enough for the purpose?— Yes, for the present size of the mine. 156. Is it not a fact that they have installed a fan with five times that capacity in the Extended Mine, which is a smaller mine?— The Taupiri Extended is a larger mine than Ralph's. 157. At present?— Yes. It is worked under difficulties greater than Ralph's, because it has only two shafts, whereas Ralph's has three. 158. Is it a fact that their fan has five times the capacity of Ralph's?— No. 159. What is the capacity of it?—lt was got for 200.000 cubic feet, but they are always short of what the makers say. Ralph's fan produces 55,000 ft. of air: that is what we get in the returns.
B—C.SI4.
C.—l 4.
58
[j. FLETCHER.
160. That is the amount according to your test: it is no proof that it is being distributed throughout {he whole of the mine?— The test is made in the different places, you know. That is the quantity produced by the fan whether the air is getting away or not. 161. I suppose you admit, with the other expert mining men, Mr. Fletcher, now, that safetylamps are absolutely necessary for this mine, do you not? —No, I do not admit it, in view of possible legislation that is foreshadowed. 162. But you formed one of a deputation to oppose that particular Bill, which provided that safety-lamps should go into such mines? —Yes, I was on the deputation. 163. And this is the Bill of 1912 which was reported from the Goldfields and Mines Committee on the 17th October, 1912, and I think that after it had passed the Goldfields and Mines Committee a deputation came down to Wellington and that you were one of the deputationists?—l was a member of it. 164. Did the Bill go through after that? —No, it has not gone through yet. 165. Did it contain this provision: "No lamp or liglit shall be used other than a locked safety-lamp shall be allowed or used in any place in a mine in which there is likely to be any such quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous . . ."? That is the Bill your deputation opposed ? —Yes, that is the Bill. I think it is the same Bill which is before the House this year. 166. Were not you one of the deputation which went to Wellington to oppose that Bill?—I accompanied the deputation of coal-mine owners as a manager. I only opposed two clauses in that Bill. 167. Was the deputation got together to oppose this Bill? —Yes, right through. 168. And it never saw the light of day, or, at any rate, it did not reach the statute-book? —No. 169. Mr. Tunks.~\ In regard to the reporting of these burnings, Mr. Fletcher, we have had a great deal of talk about the accident to Conn. I think it has been made clear that that occurred in the Extended Mine?— Yes. That accident was reported in 1912?—1n March, 1912. 171. You stated simply that he was burned? —Yes. 172. Without particularizing whether it was caused by gas or otherwise?— Yes. 173. Was there any reason for that? Did you do it with the intention of holding anything back? —No. 174. Did you receive any inquiry at once as to whether it was gas or powder which caused the burn? —No, I do not remember whether I did or not. 175. May we take it that there was no attempt at holding anything back about the burning of Conn or Willcox? —Yes; and that applies also to other cases. 176. Have you ever attempted to keep anything back from the Inspector in regard to anything that happens in the mine?—No, I tell him everything to the best of my knowledge. 177. It was stated that the brattice was found to be disarranged and there was some lack of ventilation : was there anything serious in that? —No, that happens every day in every coal-mine in New Zealand, Australia, and in the Old Country. 178. It was a trivial matter and was attended to? —Yes. 179. So that there was no necessity for you to solemnly sit down and write a letter to the Inspector of Mines to tell him that the brattice had become disarranged when five minutes' work would remove the trouble? —No. 180. In regard to watering, you said something about the method that was adopted. We have heard that it was only the middle of the road that was watered?— Yes. 181. Did you do anything or was anything done in regard to the dust that lay alongside the road ? —lt was worked into the centre and the road was kept sloppy. 182. So that what lay on the sides was drawn into the middle and got into the wet area?— Yes. 183. That was being regularly done?— Yes, regularly; men were kept for the purpose. 184. Was Ransom, although sixty years of age, fit for the work? —Yes. 185. And doubtless you could judge whether he did his work faithfully?— Yes. 186. Was any suggestion ever made that you should water the haulage-way?— No. 187. Or the old workings?— Not the old workings. It cannot be done in the old workings. 188. Mr. Molesworth, sen., in his evidence referred to some hot coal coming out of the mine? —Yes. 189. Did you know where that was coming from? —It may have been from the places on the south side —I forget. 190. What was the object of bringing up the heated material? —It was brought up for safety. 191. Mr. Brown.] To get rid of the menace?— Yes. 192. Mr. Tunks.] In regard to the question of gas in the old workings, we have had it in evidence that these old workings are return airways? —Yes, all return airways. 193. And what was the position in regard to the slope of the mine, the lie of the strata?— When travelling towards the shaft you are continually on the rise. The only dip of the seam is from the shaft to the north-west. Every bord-length we fall down feet until we come to the bottom. 194. What effect, if any, has that on the ventilation and the presence of gas?—We get what we call ascensional ventilation in its true state. That means that the continual rise from the lowest point of the mine to the upcast shaft is a help to the return air, and carries off the gases to the highest point, the air-shaft. That is the advantage. 195. The tendency of these gases is to rise? —Yes, travelling to the highest point.
J. FLETCHER.]
59
C—l 4.
196. And if that is taking place then these gases are being pursued by the return air all the time? —If there is any gas in any place where there is a fall diffusion must take place and remove it. 197. Do you consider the mine a dusty mine? —No, far from it. 198. The coal naturally contains a certain amount of water?— Yes, from 12 to 14 per cent, of moisture. 199. Is that the result of a test? —Yes, the result of analytical tests made by the Government Analyst. 200. Is that a factor in determining whether the mine is dry and dusty? —Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. It plays an important part in helping the dust to be naturally damp. 201. The Chairman.'] When the coal is in the form of dust none of that moisture is left? — I have not had any of it examined. 202. Mr. Tunks.] Prior to the experiments made by Professor Dixon, had any examination been made of the dust? —No. 203. The explosive nature of this dust had never been brought under your notice at any time?— No. 204. In consequence of Mr. Bennies letter to you, did you give any instructions about shotfiring?—Yes, I did. I instructed the deputy in charge of each section that he must supervise the firing of his own shots. 205. I think those men have all been killed?— Yes. Personal and definite instructions were issued. I got them all together and told them. In addition, I appointed two shot-firers and gave them written authority. The following is the authority which I gave John Gilbert, dated the 22nd July, 1914 : " I hereby authorize you to fire all shots in any machine bords throughout Ealph's Mine." Blenkinsopp was also given a similar authority. 206. I think you had been off the whole week prior to the explosion?— Yes, unfortunately. 207. I think you were actually in bed at the time? —Yes, and I had been all the week. - 2jQB. Had you any knowledge at all of the work that was going to be done in the mine on the Saturday morning?—No, I had no knowledge of it. 209. Then, of course, you cannot say what instructions were given to Martin, or where he was going, or where any of the others were going, or anything about it?—No, I cannot say. 210. Perhaps you can tell me this : has it been a rule in the mine to examine any old workings if work was going to be done in them? —Yes. 211. I do not mean by the old-workings deputy?— Yes, it has been the rule. 212. Can you say whether Whorskey has ever done that?— Yes, in one particular place. That second heating —we considered that as a working-place, and it was examined by the deputy, but not particularized. 213. It was not particularly referred to in his report?—No, but I know it was examined, because I have seen his dates on it myself. 214. So that he actually examined it, and included it in his general statement, but without particularizing the place ? —I am quite sure and positive of that. 215. Did you go through it with him? —Yes, one morning when he was on his rounds. 216. I may take it as a fact, then, that the absence of anything under Rule 25 in Whorskey's report meant that he had nothing to report under that rule? —That is so. 217. He does not report to you that he has nothing to report under Rule 25 ?—No. 218. You were asked some questions about this heating : were any of these sections where heating took place anywhere near No. 5? —No, a long way from it. 219. Could they have had any possible connection?—No, because all the air was brought to the air-shaft. 220. So that under no circumstances could it have had any effect? —No. 221. Now, Kelly was off for fourteen days? —Yes. 222. Do you know whether he was about during that time? —Yes, he was about during the first week—the fifth or sixth day after his accident. 223. So that though he was away from work his injuries were not very serious? —No; that is a matter of past experience. 224. In regard to this door which was blown out, had that anything to do with the ventilation of that part of the mine—the one leading to No. 5? —No, it would not affect the ventilation whether it was there or not. 225. Mr. Dowgray .] In connection with the moisture in the dust, was not the dust which was tested taken from fresh coal? — u Yes, I presume it would be. 226. Is it not a fact that lignite coal when it has been exposed for any period at all becomes dry and the moisture is passed off altogether? —I believe that would occur if it were out in the sun and the open atmosphere, but I do not know that it would be likely underground. 227. How do you account for the crumbling conditions of the pillars in your mine? Our attention was drawn to the sides of certain pillars, and the manager accompanying us told us that that was accountable by reason of their being exposed to the air. The place became dry and the moisture was absorbed? —The only time or times that I know of when there is alteration in the sides of the pillars is when we change the ventilation and put in fresh air direct into some of the returns. 228. There is not the slightest doubt that the coal on the sides, after being exposed for some time, even only to the atmosphere of the mine, has a tendency to dry and crumble? —I would not say positively one way or the other until I had had an analysis made of it, because the temperature very rarely varies. 229. But that, to my mind, would not have much effect on the fresh-cut coal which had not been exposed to the outside atmosphere? —No, that is so, perhaps.
C—l 4
60
|J. FLETCHER.
230. When once it was exposed to the air, whatever the temperature of the mine or otherwise, would it not have a tendency to dry up?—l do not think so. 1 know, because with the floor of our mine, it does not matter where, your coal is naturally damp. You cannot sit on the floor without putting a board under you. You must sit on the timber or you feel a dampness striking through your clothes. 231. Could that not be accounted for by the clay bottom? —But the bottom alters. 232. The Chairman.] Do you take the coal right out down to the fireclay? —We try to, because it is to the advantage of the worker. 233. Mr. Dow gray.~\ You stated that your intake and return air-shafts were all to the rise?— The upcast shaft is to the rise, and all the workings to the downcast in Taupiri West, which is the deeper shaft. 234. Are not the old workings in No. 5 away on the rise? —Yes, they are all coming on the rise. 235. There is just a possibility that gas might be bottled up in places of that kind? —Well, it might be possible in some isolated places that that may occur, but I have never known gas to come off coal in the bords. 236. It is possible for gas to be found under those conditions? —Yes, possible. 237. In reply to one question you mentioned that the examining deputy did inspect without specializing in his report whether the test he made was for gas or heating ?■—lt showed signs of gas and heating. 238. But prior to that I think you told Mr. Wilford that you had the men continuously on it all the time? —That was on the right side : the men were there until it was fixed up. 239. Did the deputy go to that particular place because heating had been reported?—lt was because men were working there —fillers. 240. That would be a working-place? —Yes. 241. There would be a vast difference between a place where men were filling coal and one where nien were sent casually to lift rails? —There should not be. 242. Do you not think there should be a distinction? —I think, and I have every reason to believe, that the men I had under me were conscientious deputies. You could not have got better men for making examinations. 243. To examine that place every morning would be certainly out of the deputy's run?— Yes, provided there was no work to be done in there; but you must examine once a week all the old workings. 244. In the ordinary course he would simply go his ordinary rounds ?—Yes, unless he had been specially told. 245. You stated, I think, in reply to a question, that in view of the legislation that is likely to be passed you did not consider this a mine in which it was necessary to use safety-lamps?—l say that in a separate ventilating district, in a mine where the percentage of inflammable gas is \ pei , cent, or over, then safety-lamps should be used. Supposing by the additional ventilation we contemplate by our new fan, which is on the road out from England, in anticipation of working some far-off coal, if the quantity of air is doubled in this mine by means of the new fan and we do not get more than \ per cent, of inflammable gas, the proposed legislation does not say that we shall put in provided we have this additional ventilation. 246. There is a vast difference between something that is going to occur and something we hare at present?— Yes. 247. A question I want to ask you is whether you think it necessary to work that mine with safety-lamps under the present conditions, without the new fan?—l would not be afraid to work it with naked lights. 248. In view of all that has occurred? —There may have been some unfortunate occurrence that happened that morning. 249. In view of the burnings you had had, produced by ignitions of firedamp, and this disaster coining on top of them, would you still say it would be quite safe to work with naked lights?—A man is likely to change under the stress of such a calamity as we have gone through— it upsets all one's calculations; but up to the morning of the disaster I considered this a safe mine. 250. But from the present point would you still work the mine with naked lights?— Well, thinking broadly over it, in view of the fact that the fan just gives adequate ventilation for the present workings, and with the knowledge that there may be pent-up gas in some reservoir, of course, trouble might occur again, unless the whole of those old workings, to which I have been giving special attention during the last three months, were dealt with by hydraulic stowing. Under the present conditions, however, I would let it go with safety-lamps. 251. Have you altered your opinion in connection with the Bill, or would you still oppose it?—l would oppose it in regard to two or three clauses. 252. There is no alteration in it as compared to the previous one?—l thought there was. 253. There are some good clauses in it?— Yes, and some bad ones. 254. Which ones do you object to? —I do not mean in regard to safety-lamps or anything like that. 255. Anything in regard to the ventilation clauses? There is a good deal in it incorporating the findings of the Royal Commission? —I do not think the prescribed quality of the air was based upon the report of the New Zealand Royal Commission. That is one point I seriously object to. The British standard has been laid down by the foremost scientists of the day, and is different to the proposal in the. Bill. The clause respecting "Additional rules for a mine" is also open to objection.
Cm44i
1. FLETCHER. |
256. Mr. Brown,'] Was there any pressure on that door in No. 6? —Yes, there was 6,000 cubic feet of air pulling against it. 257. I want to clear that point up. You said in reply to Mr. Wilford that it would not affect the ventilation if the door was open? —It would not have affected that split, because, though there was 6,000 ft. pressing, it was being turned down another way. 258. But, still, the pressure was on the door, and when it was open the ventilation would sweep down Nos. 5 and 6 bords ?—Yes, it is short-circuiting. 259. Then if the door was opened by anybody and there was an accumulation of gas in Nos. 5 or 6 bords that gas would not stay there long? —Not with the force of air going through there. 260. If a pocket is formed by a fall in the roof and there is gas in there, what really occurs? The ventilation is going past that place?— The ventilation is going through it, and if it has to climb over the fall there is no doubt that diffusion takes place. 261. Is it not the same as everything else—it takes the line of least resistance? Take as an example the water running down that river outside : there is an eddy formed, and is not that just exactly what takes place in the mine—the ventilation eddies round? —Yes. 262. You have had a good deal of mining experience : what is the usual practice with you as to reporting what is alleged to be a serious accident? —I only report to the Inspector what we consider a serious accident—if I think the man is going to be off work for a fortnight, unless in the case of an eye accident. If it is an eye accident he may tell you it will be better in a day or two, but the eye troubles are very slow. I would not report that; but all serious accidents I report to the Inspector. 263. Do you rely on the doctor's report?— Yes. 264. And does he not tell you whether the accident is a serious one? —Yes, always. 265. Is not that the only way you can judge whether the man is seriously injured or not? — Yes. 266. Mr. Dowgray .] I think you stated in connection with the safety-lamp proposition that if the nrovisions of the present Bill were enforced this mine would be practically able to work with naked lights?— Yes, when the new fan is put in, and if by that means we could double the ventilation. 267. If the provisions of the Bill had been in force and ) r ou had been compelled to divide your mine into ventilating sections, would this disaster have occurred? —The mine is divided into ventilating sections. 268. As described in this Bill?— Seventy-five men to a split. 269. Do you say you have seventy-five men in a split just now? —Yes, just about. 270. Would the provisions be complied with as to the air to be recorded leading into each split, as described in this Bill? —Yes. 271. That has already been carried out in your mine?— Yes, as far as I can do it. 272. I want to be sure. I have been down that mine twice. Is the mine divided into ventilating sections with all the necessary precautions required by this Bill as to air-measurements, and so on ?—Yes, we try to measure it. 273. You record it in a book? —Yes. 274. Can I see that book?— Yes. We measure the air every month. I can show you the book. [Subsequently the book was produced and handed to Mr. Dowgray for his perusal. Witness also subsequently produced his book containing references to the injuries sustained by Massey and Carlyon, regarding which Mr. Wilford had examined him. Witness read the entries as follows: "J. Massey, Huntly, Ralph's Mine; burns; July 12, 1905; sixteen days off work; £1 13s. 4d. — Carlyon, same date." Further particulars read.] Jambs Fletcheb recalled. 275. Mr. Tunks.~\ Were you in any way aware that the inquiry which Mr. Bennie addressed to you regarding accidents, in his letter of the Bth Januarj-, 1914, was without prejudice to any right to prosecute you? —No, I was not aware of that. 276. Were you aware that a prosecution of you had even been contemplated ?—No. 277. Had you any reason at all, Mr. Fletcher, to conceal anything in regard to Conn, Willcox, or Ruston? —No reason whatever to conceal. 278. I may take it that you did not report the cases of Conn and Willcox for the simple reason that you did not consider them serious injuries?— That is so. 279. Have you ever been instructed or informed that you should report every ignition of gas?— No. 280. Did you consider that it was at all necessary to do so ? —No, I did not. 281. After you sent in your list of accidents in 1912 and the following one in 1914, which included both Willcox and Conn, was any further demand made upon you by any one —the Inspector or any one else? —No. 282. Now, were you ever made aware in any way of Mr. Reed's opinions in regard to the mine?— Never. 283. So far as you are aware, was any one else connected with the company made aware of those opinions? —No, not that I was aware of. 284. Did you hear anything about the safety-lamps which Mr. Reed took to the Thames : were they mentioned to you?— No. 285. Several instances of burnings have been deposed to; we have had cases referred to. In regard to the injuries to Robert Cumming, was that in )-our time?—No; I do not know anything about the Cumming case.
61
62
C—l 4.
J. FLETCHER.
286. It is said to have happened in the little clip section, No. 2 bord : have you no recollection at- all of Cumming's case? —No, that was an old bord before I came. 287. Then the case of Robert Jenkins, who is supposed to have been injured in No. 7 north when driving a heading towards No. 5 : have you any knowledge of that? —No, because that place was stopped when I came. 288. You have heard the evidence of Mr. Molesworth in regard to an ignition when there was a flame, he said, 10 yards long, when he and Robert Neil were working together : was that brought to your knowledge? —I never heard of it till this morning. It may have been anterior to my coming here. 289. He says it was during your management. It was not brought to your knowledge? —No. 290. James Fulton testified to a place being lit by Skellern : was that ever brought to your knowledge? —No, I have made inquiries from Mr. Fulton, and he says that it happened before Raynor had lost his eye; and he had lost his eye, I know, before I came. 291. Did that apply also to what happened in No. 3 bord? —I do not know; it was a sealedoff area six years and a half ago, which, of course, was before my time. 292. We may take it then, Mr. Fletcher, that the cases you reported were the only ones that were known to you?— That is quite true. 293. What is the area of the old workings? —I estimate them at 170 acres. Then there is also No. 3 district, which should be included, and that amounts to about 8 or 10 acres —not more. 294. What is your opinion as to the stability of the shaft-pillars : do you agree with Mr. Reed and Mr. Bishop, who have said they are unsafe?—No; but while I do not wish to pit my knowledge against that of older men like Mr. Reed and Mr. Bishop, I have been here three or four years making periodical inspections all that time, and in my opinion the shaft-pillars are safe. 295. Have you noticed any appreciable fretting during that three or four years? —No, I have not. 296. What is the object of putting in the new fan, Mr. Fletcher?—Well, the company are contemplating going in for some huge developments to the west, and to carry out those developmeßts there will be required more air than the present fan is capable of producing, and with this in view the company has ordered a large-capacity fan. One has to order a fan with an indicated capacity in excess of that which is actually required, because you cannot get the capacity stated by the makers of a fan. That is due to the fact that the makers' tests are carried out under ideal conditions. 297. No instruction or suggestion was made to you by the Inspector or the Department as to the necessity for obtaining a larger fan?—No, that was provided in my plan of future developments. 298. Do you consider that for present purposes your present fan supplies adequate ventilation? —I do. 299. Now, Mr. Fletcher, what underground officials had you? —One underviewer, five dayshift deputies, one afternoon-shift deputy, and one night-shift deputy. 300. How many men were employed on the day shift? —About a hundred and fifty during the last six months. 301. And on the afternoon shift? —Twenty to twenty-five. 302. And on the night shift? —About four at the most. 303. Who was your underviewer? —Williams Gowans. 304. What were his qualifications?—He held a colliery-manager's certificate, first class, of New Zealand. 305. A competent, trustworthy man?— Yes. 306. And in regard to your other five officials, what were their qualifications and experience? —Darby and Smith, I understand, possessed deputies' certificates of service. Smith came from the collieries of Yorkshire, near Doncaster, where he had had practical experience. Darby came from Fifeshire, and had obtained experience at Kaitangata and also at Denniston. 307. And as to the other three men? —Peckham, Skellern, and the third man, Whorskey, were practically trained in the company's service here. I understand that Peckham was a worker in a gaseous mine in Australia for six years. 308. Would you say that they were thoroughly competent?— Yes, I consider them thoroughly competent. 309. To do any work that was required of them in the mine? —Yes. 310. Did you consider them competent to test for gas?— Yes, because they have found gas and reported it. That proved, I think, that their ability to test for.gas could not be doubted. The other two men were McGill and Webb. McGill was on the afternoon shift, and was a man possessed of a lot of experience obtained in New South Wales, New Zealand, and Scotland. The night-shift deputy, Webb, holds a second-class Imperial certificate of competency. He comes from the Wigan district, where he held an official position in some large collieries. 311. I understand, Mr. Fletcher, that you yourself, before the establishment of the School of Mines here, took some trouble to give lectures on mining : how long did you do that? —I took an interest in the work for two years. 312. You delivered lectures on mining? —I tried to help the young men who wished to better their positions. I attended forty-six nights in two years. During the first year I had forty-two pupils, and twenty-two during the second. 313. Did your deputies or officials attend those lectures?— Yes, numbers of them. 314. After that, I think, the School of Mines was established here? —Yes. 315. I would like you to give us an explanation in regard to that panel referred to by Mr. Reed, the ventilation of which is said to be defective? —I must explain that on my underground inspections I could only take portions of the old workings and examine them at different
3. FLETCHER.]
63
C—l 4.
times, and I think it is about nine weeks ago since the underviewer and I travelled through No. 7 north and worked our way right up into that section. I can only give you the course of the air and how it was distributed by the brattice stoppings that we erected at that time. I cannot give you the data for any later time. 316. It would be the duty of your under-manager to see to that since your inspection ?—I do not know that it would. The old-workings deputy was looking after that section. 317. Will you explain the position by reference to the plan [Exhibit DD]? —At the bottom of the winch dip in the old dip there was a current of air from 13,000 to 17,000 cubic feet per minute passing-the point marked " J.F.," and a heavy three-ply brattice door was hung across the winch dip to deflect or divert the bulk of this air to the right from the point marked " B." This was diverted through the workings by the aid of brattice doors that were left in these places. It follows the line shown in pencil with arrows. There was a brattice door at the point on the plan marked " C." There were also brattices at the points marked "D" and " E." I went through the first cut-through to the left by No. 4 bord, then took the second cut-through to the left into No. 6 bord, and lam certain there was a brattice door at the point marked " F." I did not go through the door, but followed the pencil arrow down No. 6 to the point " G," and when coming along the winch level the underviewer told me that he had given instructions for brattice-cloths at points marked 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 winch level to be renewed to keep the air up into that panel section marked in green ink. I understand that was done. 318. Do you admit that is an unventilated cul-de-sac, that panel marked in green ink? —No. 319. When you went round it nine weeks ago there was a current of air? —Yes, because 1 travelled with it. 320. And there was sufficient ventilation in that section? —Yes, in my opinion. 321. In the section, including bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6? —It was sufficiently ventilated, in my opinion, with this exception, that in the top cut-through between 4, 5, and 6 I could not swear whether the doors were down or not. 322. Can you say how long it was prior to that visit you had been there? —I could not say, although they were getting coal from that section early last year, about fifteen or seventeen months ago, and the brattice was kept up to the point of finishing. 323. Were you in the habit of using that door? —I used it very often as a short-cut into the dip. 324. Can you speak as to the air that went through that door? —No, and 1 could not give you the exact time when I went through it last. 325. Did you ever find it stuffy there and foul, such as you would call unventilated? —No. 326. Do you say, Mr. Fletcher, that that section was adequately ventilated? —Yes, in my opinion, as far as the old workings are concerned. 327. Do you say that there was any danger of an accumulation of gas there? —No. 328. There were two occasions, I think, on which the fan was stopped : can you tell us those dates? One, I think, was Easter Tuesday, and the other was a Monday?— The fan would be stopped on Good Friday; there are two or three days in the year when we give everybody a holiday—Christmas Day and Good Friday. 329. The 13th April was Easter Monday : can you say whether the fan would be stopped on that day?—No; on Good Friday. 330. Can you say whether it was stopped on the 22nd March?—No, I cannot say from memory, but I know it was stopped on Good Friday. 331. Do you wish to say anything in regard to the Coal-mines Bill?—No; 1 think it has been threshed out. There is, however, one matter which I would like to refer to. I think the Royal Commission of 1911 recommended that all future appointees to positions as Inspectors of Mines should be required to hold higher qualifications than those of a colliery-manager. I agree with that, because I think it will raise the status of our Inspectors, although I have no fault to find with the present Inspectors. It will also be an encouragement for students of mining who are not satisfied simply to obtain a mine-manager's certificate. 332. Mr. Napier.] In regard to the inspection of the old workings, Mr. Fletcher, is it not a fact that for many years no special officers were appointed for that purpose until you came here?— Yes. It is a statutory obligation upon the manager, however, to see that all return airways shall be inspected once a week. 333. Is there not a direct power in the hands of the Mines Department to order the company to employ special officers exclusively for the inspection of old workings?-—No, I do not think so. 334. And for very many years there were no special officials detailed for that duty? —The inspections were made intermittently. 335. For many years there were no special officials exclusively employed on that work? — That is so. 336. Was the appointment of the two officials for this work voluntarily made by the directors of the company? —It was done by the directors on my recommendation. 337. It was after you took over the management of the mine this regular inspection commenced? —Yes, shortly after. 338. I suppose from your experience you are able to say that gas frequently comes out from the working-places in some places?— Yes, in some places, but not in all places. 339. Now, supposing that a man had been working at such a place and went away to his lunch, and on his coming back a small quantity of gas ignited without inflicting any injury, would you call that a minor explosion?— No. 340. It would be an ignition? —Yes, an ignition of firedamp. 341. There is a marked difference? —Yes,
C—l 4.
64
[.T. FLETCHER.
342. To occasion a dust-explosion in a mine I think Professor Dixon said it was necessary to have an intense flame: do you agree with that?— Yes, it is quite necessary, according to our teachings. 343. Then if that is so, would the ignition of a small quantity of exuding gas by a workman, such as I have described, cause a dust-explosion ?—I do not think so. 344. There is no concussion? —No. 345. And if the two things are necessary and must be present to create the explosion, the absence of the concussion would prevent the explosion ?—Yes, 1 think so, because the concussion is required to raise the cloud of dust. 346. Professor Dixon told us that there must be a concussion to raise the dust, and then an intense flame to ignite it. Would you consider that the ignition of very minute quantities of gas in the ordinary way, such as I have described, would be calculated to cause a holocaust in a mine? —No. 347. Mr. Macassey."] In regard to section 58 of the Coal-mines Act, which gives the Inspector power to close an exceptionally dangerous mine, if a responsible Inspector considered a mine to be dangerous to human life and called the men out would you refuse to obey the order, or would you take the men out and then wait until the appeal against the Inspector's order was decided? —I would obey the order first. 348. Under section 58 of the existing Act and Special Rule 14 the Inspector has full power to effectually control dangerous mines? —Yes. 349. Mr. Wilford.] I understood you to say, Mr. Fletcher, that you do not add to your previous evidence to the effect that you went into bords 4, 5, and 6 when 3'ou were last up there? —I was in bords 4, 5, and 6, but not right in the far end of them. 350. But in those parts of the bords shown on plan marked "AA"? —No, I cannot swear I was up in that part of the ntine, except that I came through the bord opposite the point marked " B." ' 3*l. I want to ask you two important questions : you know under the Act you are required to keep that door locked ?—Yes, I do know. 352. You know that you did not? —I know that I did not. 353. You know that some of the witnesses have sworn that Martin entered by that unlocked door ? —Yes, some of them say that. 354. There was no lock on the door, was there? —I could not say. 355. What explosives were used in this mine up to the time of the disaster?—Curtis and Harvey's ordinary blasting-powder. 356. Is that the only explosive you used? —Excepting gelignite, which is used in stone drives. 357. Before the explosion what class of light did you use?— Naked lights. , 358. Were they all of the same kind, acetylene, or others?— Oil-lamps and acetylene-lamps; colza is the oil used. 359. And that is the only description of light you used?— Yes, excepting the safety-lamps used by the examining deputies. 360. I mean for working purposes?— Naked lights—acetylene and colza-oil head-lamps. 361. What were the means of escape in the mine in case of accident?— There are three shafts. The two downcasts are prettj r well a mile apart. The Taupiri West was an escape. The upcast has ladders in it. If the three openings into the mine were blocked no one could get out. 362. That is a contingency very unlikely to occur?—l think so. 363. Under ordinary circumstances would you consider this sufficient for escape purposes in case of an explosion in the mine?—lt is a complex problem, which required to be answered with some thought. There are dozens of mines in the Old Country with only two shafts. 364. Mr. Tunks.~\ Supposing: that Martin had been instructed to go through No. 5 to meet the other men coming up from the little dip, was there any other way except through that door which he could take, apart from the little dip?— Around No. 7 north. 365. But assuming that he had gone past No. 6, is there any other way that he could have gone without coming right back? —He could have gone right round. 366. Which was the shortest way through?— Through the door of No. 5. 367. Mr. Dowgray.] You said that there was a vast difference between an ignition and an explosion of gas. An ignition is still an explosion?— Yes, I suppose it is; although, in the course of reading reports of accidents in such papers as the Collier';/ Guardian, I have noticed that they do not call ignitions of gas "explosions." 368. Have you ever seen an ignition of gas in a mine? —No. never. T have seen gas, but not an ignition of gas. 369. You said most of your old workings acted as returns, except that part sealed off?— Yes, we scale all the return air throuah there. 370. But they are practically returns for the whole mine?— Yes, practically so, except where they converge at certain points. You can see it in certain places on the plan. 371. So that the old workings are practically returns?— Yes. 372. And under the Act they should be examined once a week? —Yes. 373. In connection with the Huntly mines being idle, I notice the New Zealand Herald of this morning says, "It may be noted that no work beyond repairing and clearing up is proceeding in Ralph's Mine." Had there been any men using monobel or blasting-powder in the Extended or any of the mines this week prior to to-day?— Yes, I think there was one shot fired over in Taupiri West. 374. Have there been any colliers working there?—-Yes; one party of men got coal for the boilers,
J. BISHOP.]
65
0.-14.
James Bishop, Certificated Mine-manager, sworn and examined. (No. 6.) Mr. Wilford : I ask leave, sir, to put in the evidence given by Mr. Bishop at the Coroner's inquest. Evidence read by witness, as follows : — " Jambs Bishop, sworn, saith : I am a certificated mine-manager and have something like forty years' experience of mining. I have been in Ralph's Mine some years ago. I arrived here on the ]sth September after the explosion. I entered the mine on the 16th, in company with Mr. Bennie and Mr. Woods. Between the 16th and the 24th I have been making almost daily inspection of the workings, with the object of assisting in the discovery of the bodies and the restoration of the mine. On the 26th September, with a view of restoring ventilation in No. 5, I went into the little dip section, and from the point of our striking the haulage level we counted six bords, and the sixth bord has a door and a stopping at the head of it. We went up the bord about a chain and found a stench arising from a body not recovered. There was too much gas for us to go up the bord. Mr. Woods managed to reach the body, and it was removed. The body was lying on the left side of the bord going up. We found it necessary to force a greater volume of air into No. 5 in consequence of the gas which was there. This was done, and by Monday, the 28th, the workings were so far clear as to enable us to investigate the fall near No. 6 bord. On entering the crosscut to No. 5 bord we found a second fall extending from a little below the crosscut for about a chain and a half down the bord. We encountered gas at the tail end of this fall. We then proceeded through to No. 4 bord, and down that to a crosscut which enabled us to get past those falls into No. 6. On testing for gas on the low side of No. swe found it there also. This fall in No. 5 was covered with dust produced by the explosion. We could not get to the top of the fall, but as far as we could see there was dust all over it. The fall in No. 6 was a new fall. There was no dust on it. It must have come after the explosion. The indications are that the explosion started either at the first or second crosscut between bords No. 5 and No. 6. The force of the explosion from the point of ignition seems to have been to the door and blown the stopping out. There are indications of a second blast extending down the bord. Another small stopping had been blown out. The bricks from the larger stopping had been blown about 2 chains down the bord. From that point the force seems to have travelled towards the main haulage-road, going west, towards the bottom end of No. 7 and east with very considerable force to the shaft. The marks of force in the haulage-road going towards the shaft are very pronounced. Towards Taupiri West section the force extended for several chains in that direction also, as indicated by broken tubs. In my opinion, the accident was due to an ignition of a small quantity of firedamp augmented by the volume of dust which would be sent up in clouds. The inflammability of dust from this mine lends strength to this opinion. I produce a statement showing the inflammability of dusts taken from this mine, supplied by the Government Analyst. The dust was taken —No. 13 from bord W.C., No. 5 district; No. 14 was taken from near No. 6 cabin haulageroad ; No. 15 from main haulage-way at No. 4 level; No. 16 from piece of Ralph's Colliery coal; No. 17 from brattice from near flat sheet, No. 5 jig. (Mr. Woods states that the dust No. 13 was taken from the spot marked ' Dust' on plan.) A copy of the report put in and marked ' S. I believe Martin would be the man who caused the explosion through coming into contact with the gas with a naked light. There is not much dust in the mine as far as I could see. The greatest proportion of force was exercised in the main haulage-road. The portions of mine not affected by the explosion were not so dusty as to call for special precautions while the mine was being worked. Those portions would be fair samples of the rest of mine. Once an explosion is started it would find its own dust as it went along. Very likely there are a series of explosions. We tested for gas in the stone drive in Kelly's drive. There was a very small percentage of gas there. It was only found in small quantities in the roof. It seemed a very good plan on first sight to have a weekly examination of the old workings, but I think now there should be in future a stricter examination of the old workings. I would not blame a manager if he had not had the old workings inspected at all unless he knew there was gas there. If a manager knew there was gas in a particular old working he should make more frequent examination of that place twice or thrice a week. Falls occur more frequently in old workings than where the men are working. A fall might cause a liberation of gas in large quantities. Any percentage of gas I would consider dangerous if it was in the return air. Any percentage of gas would be dangerous if shots were being fired. I would not consider 2 per cent, of gas dangerous in the old workings. The safety of the mine depends largely on how the deputies perform their duties. They climb a ladder to test the air at the top of a stope, sometimes by a light on a pole. " By Mr. Napier : I consider that in establishing a weekly inspection of old workings they—the management —did something not provided for by the Act and something that tended to the safety of the mine. The increase in size of the old fall must have taken place before the explosion." 1. The Chairman.] Is there anything, Mr. Bishop, which you would like to add to that statement before you are questioned any further ?—No. 2. Mr. Wilford.] Are you at present employed by the Government, or by the Taupiri Company ? —I am not employed at present by any one. 3. What was your last employment ?—I was manager of the Point Elizabeth State Coal-mine. I came here to see if I could be of any service to Mr. Fletcher since the explosion. 4. Will you tell me what are " shaft-pillars " ?—The pillars surrounding the bottom of the shaft, left to support the shaft. 5. Are they of any particular size, or of a size fixed according to requirements ?—They are generally larger than any other pillars in the mine. 6. Of course the pillars must be of adequate proportions for the safety of the mine ?—That is so. 7. Would you say, from your experience, that the pillars in this Ralph's Mine are of adequate proportions to support the shaft ? —I scarcely think the shaft-pillars are such as are calculated to maintain the shaft in a proper condition, I think they are too small,
9—C 14.
a—l 4.
66
IJ. BISHOP.
8. Is that probably due to the fact that they have been split or reduced in size ? —Yes, there are too many drives carried through them, and that has consequently reduced them in size. 9. I suppose that is because the coal there is easily won ? —I do not think any one would do it for that purpose. There must have been some other reason. Ido not think they would rob the pillars lor that purpose. 10. You say " rob " the shaft-pillars :is that a technical term. It seems rather gruesome to me ? —Yes, that is a technical term. 11. You say, then, that the shaft-pillars in Ralph's Mine have been robbed ? —I do not know how they have done it, but I do consider they are too small. 12. You say they have been robbed ? —The shaft-pillars are too small. 13. They have been robbed ? —No, Ido not say that. They have taken big' drives through and round the pillars. 14. And that has weakened them ? In your opinion, they are not as strong as they should be ? —That is my opinion. 15. Do you not think they should be strenghtened at once ? —I think steps should be taken at once in that direction 16. Should they be left a day ? —They may certainly be left a day. 17. Is there a possibility of the whole thing collapsing ? —No, I do not think there is any chance of that, but I would take precautions. 18. Would you take the responsibility of saying that there is no danger of their collapsing at present ?—-I am not going to say they will collapse at present. There would be a gradual settlement if such a thing took place. 19. Would you tell this Commission that in your opinion they are unsafe ? —I cannot say that. There is a second outlet from this mine. 20. But this would be a very serious thing ? —Yes, for everybody concerned. I think steps should be f&ken to strengthen them. 21. Do you know how long it has been in that condition ?—No, I could not say. 22. In the course of your evidence at the inquest you said, I thmk, that a small quantity of gas would be sufficient to cause the explosion. Are you still of that opinion ?—Yes, I think a small quantity of gas would be sufficient. 23. We may take it that a small quantity of gas was sufficient to start the explosion. Do you still think a small quantity of gas started the explosion ?—Yes, there is one good reason for my conclusion, and that is that Martin's body was in no way burnt —even the hair was not singed —and if there had been a large accumulation of gas there I think the indications of fire and of burning would have been very much greater. 24. Might not Martin's body have been hurled back some distance ? —lt would have been surrounded by flame. 25. There was a fairly large piece of coal in his head ? —Yes. 26. That either came there by the piece of coal being hurled with great force striking his head, or else Martin was himself hurled against the side ? —Yes. 27. You still stick to your opinion that it does not follow that a large quantity of gas was ignited to cause such an explosion, though such a thing is possible, large or small ? —Yes. 28. And there is no way to measure ? —No ; but if there had been an ignition of a large quantity of gas, I think it is only a common-sense conclusion that there would have been much more evidence of burning. 29. The clothes were stripped off him —there was nothing left on him but his boots ?—Yes. 30. His coat was found to the south of him ?—Yes, he was coming from that direction. [Plan AA discussed by Mr. Wilford and witness.] 31. I am right in saying that Martin's coat was found to the south of his body ?—Yes. 32. Is it not a fact that the coat was practically undamaged, although all the rest of the clothing was in pieces ? —Yes, but he might have had his coat on his arm. 33. If his coat was further south than he was, is it not fair to presume that he was hurled north ? —Yes, that is quite right. 34. He was nearer the door at the time of the explosion than his body was found ?—Quite so. 35. I suppose you will admit that bords 4, 5, and 6 are dead ends ? —That is quite true. 36. I mean that bords 4, 5, and 6 are cul-de-sacs I—lf1 —If the door was closed. 37. If the door was closed at the south end of No. 6 bord then those three bords were cul-de-sacs or dead ends ?—That is so. 38. Then they were gas-collectors if gas was there ?—Yes, they would accumulate gas. 39. It was an ideal place for a gas-collection if there was gas exuding, because there was no current of air to take it away ?—[Witness here pointed out to Mr. Wilford the course of the ventilation.] 40. You say that the ventilation comes in at the point marked " B," No. 4 bord, continues along that bord, then through the crosscut into No. 5 bord, and then through the crosscut into No. 6 bord, which is a dead end ?—As far as I know, that is so. 41. Do you know where the old fall is ?—I do. 42. Have you got the longitudinal section of those bords ?—This is the longitudinal section of the three bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 [Exhibit BB]. 43. I want to take No. 5 first—that is the middle one. You notice that the old fall cuts off practically the north end from the south end ?—Yes. 44. This is a plan of the conditions since the explosion ?—Yes. 45. Now take No. 6 bord : the fall does not cut off one end of the bord from the other. It would be possible to get over the new fall ?—Yes, there is a walking-track over it. The plan as drawn is on an exaggerated scale,
J. BISHOP.]
67
0.—14,
46. It is rather misleading, is it not ?—lt is usual for civil engineers to do it that way, in order to show up these small places. 47. Did you find any gas in that new fall ?—No. 48. None at all ?—No. 49. Did you find any gas in the old fall ?—At the north end and at the south end. 50. There is no indication to show that any gas which caused the explosion came from the new fall in No. 6 bord ?—None whatever. 51. It must have come from the fall in No. 5 bord ?—That is my opinion. 52. Did you see any loose rails about there ?—There are rails projecting there. 53. They are sticking out at the north end of the old fall now ?—Yes. 54. Which way do you think Martin entered No. 6 bord—by the north end ?—From the position of his coat I think he must have come from the north end. 55. Did you not say at the Coroner's inquest that you thought he came from the other end '( — No, there is certainly nothing in my evidence to that effect as far as I know. 56. Your opinion now is that Martin may have entered by the door ?—Yes, and I beliuve he was going to work in connection with the removal of the rails. 57. It is higher ground at the door than at the north end ?—Yes. 58. Do not you find the most gas - at the highest point ?—Certainly. 59. How would he have got from the door to the position where the body was found—he would have had to go downhill ? —I cannot say. • 60. The highest point is where you find the most gas ?—That is so. 61. Therefore if the door is the highest point there would be much more gas there than lower down ?—Yes, there would be, provided always there was sufficient to fill up the workings. 62. The Chairman.] It would depend upon the height of the bord ? —lt depends on whether there was sufficient gas, and my opinion is that there was not. The gas was met by Martin either at the crosscut, where the letter " B " is placed, or at the crosscut marked " P ' on the plan. 63!* ' Mr. Wilford.] Then, if your suggestion has any merit in it and he met the gas at B, he must have been hurled a tremendous distance, and how would you find his coat where it was ?—There was a small quantity. He may have reached a certain distance and then have got the second blast. If there was a large quantity of gas he would never have got through the door. 64. Are you suggesting seriously that he may have run with the first blast and then been caught with the second one ?—He may have. . 65. Is it not a more reasonable theory that he threw his coat away when he was struck ? —lt is more reasonable. 66. And if that is more reasonable, then it is also more reasonable that he entered at the north end ?—That is so. 67. That is axiomatic ?—Yes. 68. Will you tell me what merit there is in your suggestion ?—I am not assuming any merit, but that is the position as far as I can understand it. 69. It is not only because you found the other men down that way ?—Yes. 70. And taking the position of the coat, and the position of the body, and the ordinary condition that gas obtains in largest quantities at the highest point ?—Yes, there is something in that. 71. Now, if it took a week and a day to remove most of the gas from those bords, that is certainly proof that there was considerable difficulty in removing it on account of the dead ends, or that there was a very great quantity of gas present ?—There would be a large quantity of gas after the explosion, because the ventilation was all disarranged. 72. How would they get it out—by bratticing ?—By renewing the stoppingsjand carrying the air to the workings. The whole of the stoppings in the mine were practically knocked out and had to be replaced, and. the gas could not be displaced until many of the stoppings had been rebuilt. This done, two full days sufficed to clear away the bulk of the gas. 73. How near would you think those rails are to Martin's body ? —About 100 ft. from the body. [ 74. And about how much less from the coat ?—About 10 ft. 75. Then we may take it that if Martin was standing where his coat was found at the time of the explosion he had got within 90 ft. of the, rails ?—Yes. 76. On this plan we have got marked " No. 4 bord 29,540 cubic feet " : what does that mean ? —It means that there was space for that quantity. 77. And the total space in bords Nog. 4, 5, and 6 and the stentons is 79,685 cubic feet ? —That is so. 78. That is to say, measuring the whole space to the roof, it would hold practically 80,000 cubic feet ?—Yes. 79. Did you go up from the main haulage-road along No. 5 section ?—Yes. 80. And is the road which comes to a dead end on the right side of the door —is that a travellingroad ? I could not say that. Ido not know what their practice was regarding the use of that road. 81. There is a dead end and the door on the right. You are going due west to the dead end, and then you come to the bord :is that not the travelling-road to No. 5 ?—I do not know which are travelling-roads there. When I entered this section and made the discovery of the body I came from the north. 82. Can you tell me the height of No. 6 bord ?—lt is very irregular—in some places it is 10 ft., I should say. 83. What do you think is the highest point ?—lt is about 6 ft. or 7 ft. high at the end of the bord and 10 ft. or 11 ft. in other places. 84. Mr. Napier.] With regard to your remarks as to the percentage of gas present, you said that you considered that any percentage of gas in the return airway would be dangerous ? —Yes, I do.
C—l 4.
68
[J. BISHOP,
r*| 85. You do not mean dangerous inflammably, do you ?—Yes, I do. I mean that with any gas in the return airway—say f per cent, or 1 per cent. —safety-lamps ought to be used. It is reasonable to assume that if you find 1 or 2 per cent., or even \ per cent., in the return airway there must be some places in the mine giving off gas very freely to contaminate the air extent. The whole ventilation of the mine is in the return airway, and if that contains gas, even in small percentages, there must be some places giving off gas in considerable quantities. 86. Then it is merely because of the pollution of the air by gas, as the result of the leakage of gas somewhere, that you say it is dangerous ?—Yes ; that is, in the presence of naked lights. 87. But supposing that Deputy Wear fairly established that the percentage right through was 1 or \ per cent., would you not consider that air or gas dangerous to men inflammably ?—No, it might not be ; but it is a very well-established fact that a very small percentage of gas may cause a very serious disaster in a working-place. 88. The gas-mixture will not explode unless the percentage is 5 or 6 ?—lt is established that you cannot explode a weaker mixture with an ordinary flame. 89. By " dangerous " you do not necessarily mean that it has reached explosive consistency ?— Not unless peculiar conditions are set up, and it has become possible to cause a flame with detonation. 90. As a prudent and experienced man you mean that any percentage would be dangerous, and would lead you to take precautions against that danger being increased ?—Yes. 91. It is really a tell-tale of something that might exist somewhere else in the mine ?—Yes. 92. Does not firedamp, even with a high percentage of gas, have a constant tendency to diffuse ? —It has. 93. If good ventilation is provided the gas would be swept away or diluted almost as fast as it exuded ? —That is so. 94. You said in your evidence at the inquest that the gas having ignited the coaldust would feed itself in its progress ? —Yes, that is my opinion. 90. Bo that once you started a gas-explosion there might be a series or succession of explosions of the dust ? —There might. 96. And the later ones might be even fiercer than the preliminary one ? —That is so. 97. The latter explosions, of course, being dust-explosions, once the gas set fire to them ?—Yes. 98. Now, you know, I believe, that the bodies were recovered some distance out, where apparently there could have been little gas, but where the flame was fiercer. Those bodies were considerably burned ? —Yes, I understand they were badly burned. 99. More than Martin ?—Yes. 100. Martin was not burned at all ?—No. 101. And if there had been what Professor Dixon calls a fierce flame at or about where his body was found he would necessarily have been considerably burned ? —lf there had been a large quantity of gas when gnited Martin would have been much more badly burned. 102. Therefore it is conclusively proved that there could not have been a very large gas-ignition in the beginning ?—That is my opinion. 103. Based upon the evidence ? —Yes. 104. I think you said his coat was 10 ft. away ? —That is so, according to this plan. 105. That is not a very great distance ; he might have dropped it just before the explosion '{ —He might. 106. The force could not have been very great ?—There must have been considerable force when once the explosion started, later on, if not then. 107. Now, Mr. Wilford suggested to you that because it took over a week from the date of the explosion to clear the mine of gas, therefore that proved that before the explosion there must have been a great quantity of gas there, or that the ventilation was defective ? —I did not take Mr. Wilford to mean that at all. 108. Then the question had no meaning. Any condition that existed since this explosion—do you say that that is evidence of the quantity of gas present before the explosion ?—None whatever. Mr. Wilford meant that there must have been a large quantity of gas present after the explosion, and it certainly took some considerable time to get in the stoppings and so on. 109. However, I want to get it clearly from you. Would the presence of any quantity of gas since the explosion be any indication or give any idea of either of the two things— i.e., that there was defective ventilation before the explosion, or that there was a large accumulation of gas ?—No, it does not. 110. Do you say that the rails which were protruding from under the old fall are still in their original position ? —Yes, as far as I can see. 111. They are not loose rails ? —No. 112. Mr. Tunks.] Do you know whether those rails extend right down the bord ?—No, they do not, as far as I can see. 113. Those rails are not the heap of rails that were going to be taken out ? —I cannot say what they were going to do. 114. Now, in your evidence before the Coroner you are reported to have said that if a manager knew there was gas in the old workings he should make careful inspection once a week. Did I understand you to mean by that that that should be done without such an incentive as the danger of an explosion or the presence of gas ? —Yes, if a man knows that gas has been given off he should take every precaution. 115. Quite so ; but you are speaking now of old workings ? —Yes, but even in old workings you could have liberations of gas which would endanger the whole mine. 116. Is it usual in this country to examine old workings in the way that has been done in this mine ? —No. I said in my evidence before the Coroner that I considered that the manager was doing some-
J. BISHOP.]
69
C—l 4.
thing by means of this inspection which was not required under the Act, and I do not know any other mine where they do it so carefully. In a mine where the pillars are extracted it is not so necessary. 117. Is this mine not unique in that it has a lake and river over it ? —Yes. 118. Are there not mines in Australia which extend under the sea, like this one ? —Yes, but you have a different class of roof, and there they also leave the pillars. 119. A great deal has been said about watering the dust in the mine. Do you consider this mine a dusty mine ? —No, Ido not, not as we understand dusty mines. Wherever there is small coal there must be some dust. 120. And do you consider that watering is necessarily effective to prevent coaldust-explosion ?— No, watering has been found very ineffective. 121. Have you seen this report published by the Legislative Assembly in New South Wales this year on the question of the best means of dealing with coaldust in collieries, with the object of preventing explosions of coaldust being initiated and carried through the workings ? —No, I have not had an opportunity of reading it. 122. It is dated the 22nd July, 1914. I would like to read you this extract to see if you agree with it. I will read the whole paragraph. It is under the heading of " The best methods to be adopted to remove coaldust or to render it innocuous " : "In the first place, it maybe pointed out that to remove the coaldust from many collieries to such an extent as to make an explosion impossible is considered by your Committee as impracticable. In support of this view the following quotation is taken from page 86 of the Second Report of the Imperial Royal Commission on Mines : ' It is quite clear that the entire removal of coaldust from a mine so as to render it completely immune against an explosion is out of the question. A great deal can, no doubt, be done in keeping sections of the mine absolutely clear, especially when they are specially prepared. Much can also be done by other methods, such as by preventing dust from entering the shaft, by making the tubs or trams dust-tight, &c. Most of the witnesses thought that the " primary " remedies offered the greatest safeguard, especially stricter precautions in the use of explosives ; and it is obviously better to stop an explosion at its origin rather than to depend on checking it in its career when it may be found to be unmanageable. Unforeseen accidents, however, such as a sudden outburst of firedamp, the breakage of or defect in a safety-lamp, the .' personal equa tion ' in the handling of explosives, have to be taken into consideration, and it is therefore inadvisable to rely only on such precautions. No doubt a certain proportion of the dust can be removed by rilling it into tubs and sending it to the surface, but this is of no value from the point of view of preventing the extension of an explosion. Having .regard, however, to the enormous extent of the roadways and working-places of a modern colliery, the increasing depth of cover, and, in some cases, the temperature of the strata, it is not, in our opinion, practicable to maintain a dusty mine throughout all its ramifications in a constant state of safety in relation to coaldust-explosions. We emphatically recommend, therefore, a remedy such as stone-dusting of a permanent character in preference to watering, which, by evaporation, may become useless within a few hours if not renewed. In no case within our experience, where the seam is dry and dusty, have we observed any mine so thoroughly treated by watering as to prevent a coaldust-explosion being carried through the workings ; and, while thorough treatment by watering would undoubtedly ultimately arrest an explosion, the impracticability of doing so is fully recognized by many authorities ; and in effect, therefore, to look upon watering alone as a remedy for coaldust-explosions is to lean upon a broken reed." Do you agree with that ?—I do. 123. Do you kriow whether the use of inert dust has ever been tried in New Zealand ? —No instance of it has ever come under my notice. 124. So that this process of treatment by inert dust may be looked upon as quite in its trial stage ? —It is under trial, and it has not proved to be effective so far. 125. The Chairman.) You have no information yourself as to what is the most effective method ? —No, it is very hard to decide. It is best to keep the mine clear of dust. 126. That would mean taking it out of the mine ? —Yes, and that is quite impracticable. 127. Somebody has suggested reversing the ventilation ?—I do not know what would be the effect of that. 128. The ventilation always running in the one current is said to have the effect of leaving coatings on the pillars, and so on, but by reversing the current you would dissipate that dust ? —I think you could get exhaust-fans to take it up to the surface, but to send it one way to-day and another way to-morrow would be no benefit. 129. I think you said at the inquest that you thought there should be a stricter examination of these old workings in the future. What did you mean ? —I meant a stricter examination for fires and gas. It was not made clear that a strict examination for gas was made. 130. I understand that was not part of the men's duties. What would you do supposing you had charge of that mine and wanted a proper examination of those workings made : what instructions would you give to the inspector who went down to see them ? —That all the workings should be examined for gas. It is not a complete examination unless they are all examined. 131. Would you think it sufficient for the examining official to be silent on the point if he found no gas ? —lt is taken for granted that if it is not found he says nothing about it. 132. Would it not be an improvement to say that he did not find any gas ?—Yes, it would be an improvement. 133. You said that in the examination of these old workings the manager did more than he was required to do by law —something extra ?—lt is not provided for in the Act. The Act only prescribes the examination of the actual working-places. 134. Do you think it is the manager's duty to look after all the workings in the interests of the safety of the mine ? —Yes, and if the manager knew that his men were going to do work in the old workings he should have that place specially examined.
C—l 4.
70
[j. BISHOP.
135. If all those men were going down to take out those rails should there not have been a special examination ? —I think the management must have anticipated that the places were to be examined. I do not know their custom, of course, but I think it should have been done. 136. You marked two places on the plan " B " and " P " where Martin might have come into contact with gas ?—Yes. 137. Could you suggest where that gas originated ?—ln the fall of No. 5 bord. 138. That is the result of your examination ? —Yes, and I have examined many other places with the object of finding any other exudation of gas to account for the disaster, but that is the only place where I found gas exuding from the strata overlying the coal. 139. You said that this is not a dusty mine : that is, in comparison with what ? —Just as we know coal-mines. There is a lot of small coal about in every working-place. This is certainly not a dry and dusty mine as compared with the mines of the Old Country, in which you find dust flying in every direction. You are wading in it Up to your ankles sometimes. 140. Do they have explosions there ? —Yes, they do, and very bad explosions. 141. I see it is mentioned that they did not have explosions until they had improved the ventilation and brought in more oxygen ? —Some scientists say that the fine particles of coaldust are very ready to absorb oxygen, and thus become like gunpowder. 142. Supposing the oxygen were less in percentage, would it conduce to safety ? —That is the most recent proposal of a Dr. Harger. He proposes that a greater proportion of carbonic acid should be introduced, and that oxygen should be reduced. Then it becomes a question as to whether humanity could live in the air with that reduced amount of oxygen. 143. Have you ever studied that aspect of the question, as to the reduction of the oxygen '! — Only from technical papers. I have read of Dr. Harger's research. He has put his papers before all the technical associations in England. 144. Mr. Brown.] Before the world ? —Yes. 145,. Mr. Dowgray.] Following up that proposal, would you recommend that the percentage of oxygen should be reduced to 17 per cent. ?—No, Ido not think I would. I would not experiment upon myself that way, anyhow. 146. We have had a great deal said on the subject of working-places. A great deal hinges upon this matter. As a mining man, what is your interpretation of a man's working-place ?—As we know it—you and I —the working-places of a mine are the places where coal is being obtained. In saying that I do not say that because a man is sent into an old working it should not be his working-place for the day. His working-place is the place where he works. 147. The terms " a man's working-place " and " working-faces " are two different things ?— No ; that is only a confusion of terms. " Working-face " and " working-place " are just the same. 148. The Chairman.] Has " working-place " any technical meaning ? Has it a distinct meaning ? What would a mining man understand by it ?—From long usage it has been looked upon that where coal was being worked was a working-place, but, generally speaking, where a man may go to is his working-place for the time being. Supposing Mr. Dowgray got a cavil in a certain pit, and I met him on the wav, I would say, " Have you got a good working-place ? " but not " a good workingface." 149. You would certainly define it as the place where you were going to work ?—Yes, it would be the place where the man was going to work that day. 150. You said that you would not consider this a dusty mine ?—I do not consider it a dusty mine. 151. In view of the explosion, do you consider it a dusty mine now ?—That puts it in a different position ; every precaution will have to be taken now. 152. That is, since you learned of the explosive nature of the dust ? —I had no knowledge of it before. 153. But since then you think the mine will have to be watched very carefully ?—Yes. 154. You stated that nothing that has occurred since the explosion will have any bearing on the explosion —that is, in reference to the accumulation of dust ?—Yes. 155. Would the very fact that you discovered upon your examination that that particular part of the mine held large accumulations of gas since the explosion has occurred, would that not lead you to believe that the strata of that particular part of the mine contains an enormous amount of CH 4 ? —It leads me to the conclusion that the strata does contain CH 4 . Whether an enormous amount or not, it would not require a very great exudation to accumulate a considerable quantity in fifteen days. 156. The explosion occurred on the 12th ? —And it was not until the 28th that I made my examination. x 157. Did you discover the gas before then ?—Yes ; but we could not get any air to it. 158. That large area was filled with gas before the 28th ?—Yes ; perhaps four or five days before. 159. I believe the old workings of this mine constitute the return airway ?—The air scales through them. 160. Evidence has been led to show that the old workings were the return of the mine ?—Yes. 161. If the old workings are the return airways of the mine, and evidence has been led to show that the management took extra precautions by appointing two inspectors to examine them once a week, claiming that by so doing the manager was doing something more than is required by the Act, do you think it is an extra precaution to have the return airways—that is, the old workings—examined once a week ?—I think that is the rule. 162. Then they are only doing what is required of them by the law ?—I do not think the whole of the return air passes through the old workings. 163. But the very fact that it was scaling into the old workings would constitute it a return ?— Yes.
J. BISHOP.]
71
a—l 4.
164. There has been something said about rails protruding from the fall in No. 5 bord ? —Yes. 165. You will have noticed that evidence has been led here by Deputy Wear that that fall has increased at each end very considerably ?—lt has certainly increased at the upper end. I do not know anything about the other end. 166. I understand it was increased at both ends ?—He said, " longer and higher." 167. Is there any possibility that the rails had been lying there, and that the men had been sent there to remove them ?—I cannot say whether the men were going to lift them or not. 168. They were not entirely exposed when I saw them ?—The manager could not have been aware that the old fall had come down or that it was in the state it is in now. 169. The deputy stated in his evidence that the fall is greater ?—There would have been more of them exposed. 170. It is quite possible, do you think, that they were ordered to be lifted in case they were covered up ?—lt might. 171. You know that it is provided in the British Coal-mines Act that where there is \ P er cent. of inflammable gas in the return airways that would constitute a safety-lamp mine ?—Yes, that is my contention. It is to be assumed from that that gas was coming in in quantity. 172. And \ per cent, taken from six samples in one split by the Inspector of Mines in the ordinary ventilation would be held to prove that the ventilation is not adequate ? —Not sufficient to dilute it entirely. 173. Do you agree with that ? —Yes. 174. Mr. Napier.] Mr. Dowgray asked you a question regarding the gas contained in the strata : what was your answer to that ?—lt was proved that the strata did contain CH 4 , whether in large or small quantities. 175. In answer to another question, Mr. Bishop, as to whether you considered this a dusty mine, in view of what you now know and of what has happened since as to the inflammability of the dust, would you not now consider it a dusty mine ? What relation has the inflammability of the dust to the quantity of the dust ? —lt has no relation to the quantity. 176. So that I may take it that because the dust is more inflammable than ordinary bituminous dust it is no proof that this mine ought to be considered a dusty mine, when it was not considered a dusty mine before ?—lt may not be considered a dusty mine and still it may be necessary to take extra precautions. 177. Mr. Dowgray.] As to the .question put you just now, you said you would not consider it a dusty mine. You were referring to the amount of dust. I understand you to mean that owing to the inflammable dust in this mine, though the amount of dust might not be very great, it may be sufficient to warrant it being considered a dusty mine ?—lt would render greater precautions necessary. It does not require a large quantity of dust to make a dust-explosion. One authority has set up the idea that a large quantity of dust may help to extinguish the explosion, even though it set up the explosion in the first place. 178. Since you learned of the inflammability of the dust in this mine would you say that it is a mine in which the ordinary blasting-powder should not be used ? —lt would be better to do without it. The safest English explosive to be got. 179. And do you consider that other precautions should be taken by means of the appointment of shot-firers ?—I think that is a wise precaution in any mine, whether it is a safety-lamp mine or otherwise. No miners should be allowed to fire their own shots. 180. Mr. Brown.] Is it not customary, when men are sent into old workings to do anything, that the deputy goes or sees that the place is safe before the men go in ?—Yes, it is customary, and he should do so. 181. That door in No. 6 : would it be perfectly tight with the pressure on it ?—No. 182. Is it not a fact that it is a most difficult thing to make any stopping practically tight in a mine ?—Yes. 183. Then, if that door was not absolutely tight, would there not be a certain amount of ventilation going down No. 6 ?—A little. 184. Sufficient, probably, to remove an accumulation of gas ?—lt would be sufficient to dilute some of the gas. 185. It has been suggested that there was practically 80,000 cubic feet of gas in those bords 4, 5, and 6 and the stentonsjadjoining ?—There is space for that quantity. 186. If that quantity were mixed to its highest explosive point with air, would the result not be an explosion with onejsolid mass of flame ?—Yes, it would be very disastrous. Ido not think we would have seen any sign of Martin under those conditions. Such an explosion would be to the extent of eight times its bulk. 187. If 80,000 cubic feet of gas were there, as has been suggested, and was ignited, you would have 640,000 cubic feet. If that place was charged with gas to that extent the force would be something terrific, and there would be an unmistakable sign of burning all round those bords ? —Yes ; even a 1,000 ft. would result in enormous burning. 188. In gas-explosions and reports of them is it not a fact that the ribs of the bords and the stentons show unmistakable signs of charring, and become absolutely coked for 2 in. in I —That is so. 189. In regard to the proposed amendment to the Coal-mines Act, what is your opinion of clause 48 (a) in regard to workmen's inspectors : should those men not have a practical experience as miners ?—Yes, that is to be inferred—that they are practical men with experience. It should be made clear in the Act. 190. According to the section they can appoint anybody to make that inspection ?—They may appoint two persons, whether employed in the mine or not—that is the reading of the clause.
C—l 4.
72
[J. BISHOP.
191. In your opinion, should these men be qualified men, with at least five years' experience ?— I think it is quite reasonable that they be practical miners. 192. Clause 48 (c) says that " The persons so appointed shall make a full and accurate report in writing under their hands of the result of their inspection, and shall within twenty-four hours of the making of such inspection furnish a copy of such report to the mine-manager." Is it not fair to expect them to report the result of their inspection in the office of the mine as soon as they come out from the mine, without waiting till the next day ?—I think, the sooner the better. 193. When a man examines a mine he reports immediately on what he has seen, whether he has to make an examination prior to the men going into the mine or an ordinary examination —he always reports immediately he comes from the mine. Do you not think the same rule should apply to the examination and the report by the workmen's inspectors ? —I think it is quite reasonable to ask them to report immediately they leave the mine. 194. The Chairman.'] Would not a man make a better final report if he were allowed to make a preliminary report, and then after some time to make a final report ?—lt has been the practice to make the report in the report-books as soon as they come up. They have always done it straight away with us, and it is better for all concerned to have the report made forthwith when everything seen during the inspection is fresh in the minds of the inspectors. 195. Mr. Brown.] In regard to section 48 (/), which provides that if the workmen's inspectors report the mine as dangerous they may request the manager to cease work and withdraw the men, if the workmen or anybody who examines the mine is to have the same right as the manager in regard to the withdrawal of the men should he not have the same qualifications ?—I do not know that he should. It is not worth while setting up that idea. I think if you gat practical, miners to make the inspections there will not be any trouble. 196. Should they not have some qualifications ? —Yes, the qualifications of a practical miner. 197. Clause 13 of the Bill deals with the height of lifts and pillar workings. You will see there that lifts are limited to 10 ft., and the Inspector is to determine the height it is to be worked up to ?—Yes. 198. Assuming that it is 12 or 14 ft. high with a clean hard roof, would it not be unwise to work to that and leave the coal there ?—You could not do it, the cost of keeping up the coal over 10 ft. may be so excessive ; and, again, it may be dangerous to attempt it. 199. Would it not be more dangerous than if you took it right to the main roof ? —Yes, I think so. 200. Who is in the better position to judge —the man who has the whole supervision of the workings, the manager, or the man who comes in and inspects once a month or perhaps less ? —I do not look upon this clause seriously : it is a clause that cannot be worked. 201. Is there any other clause in the Bill you would like to refer to ?—I do not think there is, except that one which provides for the Committee on special rules (clause 9). I think the construction of that Committee is wrong. The Inspector of Mines should not be on it. 202. You are of the opinion that the constitution of the Committee is wrong ? —Yes, it puts the Inspector in a wrong position. It should be the Magistrate instead of the Inspector. Ido not think it is an objectionable clause if you get reasonable men on the Committee. 203. Mr. Dowgray.] Do you agree with clause 21 (a) in the schedule to the Bill, which provides that " All deputies shall during their rounds examine the roof and sides of the mine, irrespectively of the examination by workmen and workmen's inspectors ? Is not that very necessary ? —I think that is quite right and necessary. 204. Mr. Brown.] You heard Professor Dixon give his evidence : have you ever come across any reference to him in the mining works ? —Yes, I have known his name for a long time. 205. Is he not a recognized authority ? —Yes, on the analysis of coaldust and the chemistry and behaviour of coaldust. 206. Would you mind reading that out [book handed to witness] ?—[Witness read as follows.] " Transactions of the Institution of Mining Engineers, Vol. xlvii, Part 2, 1913-14.—The president (Sir Thos. H. Holland) wrote regretting that, in consequence of an important meeting in London of the Royal Commission on Navy Fuel, he could not be present at the general meeting of the society to support the proposal to elect Professor Dixon as a honorary member. Professor Dixon was, however, well known to the members of the society, as his researches had had so direct and important a bearing on problems connected with coal-mining. He had served on the Royal Commission on Explosions of Coaldust in Mines and on the Royal Commission on Coal-supplies. He was still a member of the Home Office Committee on Explosions in Mines, and thus continued, purely in the public interest, to devote his time and unusual ability to the solution of problems that added to the safety and amenities of the miner. It was now twenty years since Professor Dixon had delivered the Bakerian lecture to the Royal Society on the ' Rate of Explosion in Gases,' and the researches then described had formed the basis on which progress had since been made not only in regard 'to the purely theoretical problems, but in regard to the practical application of the principles established. Apart altogether from the way in which Professor Dixon's work had been of direct value to the mining community, his position in the scientific world was such that the society might well regard it as an honour to include his name in its list of members. After a distinguished career at Oxford as a student, as a Fellow, and as a lecturer, Professor Dixon had in 1886 succeeded Sir Henry Roscoe as Professor of Chemistry at the Owens College, having been elected in the same year a Fellow of the Royal Society. Since then he had been president of the Chemical Society in London, and in 1913 the Royal Medal of the Royal Society was awarded to him in special recognition of his contributions to chemical science. His own direct contributions to science form but a part of those due indirectly to his activities, as he had now for twentyeight years been in charge of one of the largest and most active chemical schools in the country."
C—l 4.
.1. BISHOP.
73
Mr. Bishop recalled. 207. Mr. Macassey.] Under section 58 of the Act, if the responsible Inspector of Mines considers a mine exceptionally dangerous he may move to have the men called out ? : —I would agree to the callingout of the men, but I would take any steps I thought necessary afterwards. 208. Under section 58 and Special Rule 14 you think there is full power given to the Inspector to control dangerous mines ?—Certainly.
Joseph Mount Brownlie, Horse-driver, sworn and examined. (No. 7.) Mr. Wilford : I ask leave, Sir, to put in the evidence given by Mr. Brownlie at the Coroner's inquest. Evidence read by witness, as follows :— " Joseph Mount Brownlie, sworn, saith: lam a horse-driver employed in Ralph's Mine. I ent down on the morning of the accident at 7 a.m. I went along to the cabin about 100 yards from c shaft. I waited for Smith, the deputy. He told me to go to the stables and get my horse. I did iat. I went down the rope-walk. There were four of us at the stable. We put the harness on and /ent to No. 2, to the little dip. We only got through two doors and got on the turn. We had left Thompson in No. 2. We had got through the two trap-doors when we felt a gust of wind come towards us. It lifted Morton into the old workings and threw me against the trap-door. I was not knocked about at all. I did not see any flame nor hear any sound. There was a smell of something—not fresh air. We then came back to the shaft by another way, the three of us. The air was good along this way and at the foot of the shaft. It took us ten minutes to get to the shaft from where we were struck by the gust of wind. It would be about 7.20 when we met the wind. I have been working in the mine about four years. I have never heard of any complaints among the men of insufficient air or gas. It was always looked upon as safe. I took two boxes of explosives to the cutting-machine in No. 6, Wilson's gig, on the Thursday, and on Friday took two cases to the stone drive. I saw Darby :he was at the telephone at the shaft-bottom. I thought he was getting the word from No. 6 cabin. "By Mr. Bennie : I have driven in No. 6 and No. 6 special. I have not seen much coaldust on the road from No. 6 cabin to the door — i.e., the first door. There would be a little at the side, but the track was rather slushy. I have been travelling round that way since the strike. The track was watered by Ransome. I could not say how far it, was kept watered. " Joseph Mount Brownlie recalled : On the day prior to the accident I got instructions from Deputy Smith to take rails from the little dip. A fortnight before I had been drawing rails from the same section. Smith gave me Alexander McGill and Mortrum to assist me, and said he would send others to assist —four others. This was on the Saturday morning. He did not mention names. I was at the shaft-bottom when I got the instructions. We were to take the rails to the trap-door leading to No. 5 section. The four others would come through the trap-door from No. sto meet me and help me to lift the rails. I was one of the first to go down the mine that morning. I did not see the four others. On the Friday evening previous to the accident I spoke to Allen and Baker, and they said they were going to the little dip to help to draw rails.| I think Roper and Jackson were also to help. Martin worked in No. 5 ; he was a contract trucker. Ido not know what Martin would be doing there that day unless he went to draw rails for No. 5. The bodies of Allen, Roper, Baker, and Jackson were found just on the No. 5 side of the door that was blown out. " By Mr. Tunks : I would have brought the rails right up to the door with the horse, and they would then have been pulled through the door, and we would all have taken them, to No. 5 flat sheet. The whole seven of us would have gone right to the bord to help to draw the rails. "By Mr. Napier : I did not know what Martin was there for. No. 5 truckers were there a fortnight before drawing rails. By the ' trap-door ' I mean the door that was blown out." 1. Mr. Gould.] Did you see the bodies of Allen, Roper, Baker, and Jackson down the mine ? — No, not on the Saturday morning. 2. You have no knowledge of your own as to where they were found ? —No. 3. Who gave you your instructions the previous fortnight to draw the rails ?—Mr. William Smith, the deputy. 4. That is the same man who gave you the instructions on the Saturday of the disaster ? —Yes. 5. Who assisted you the previous [fortnight ? —Baker, Jackson, Broadbent, Wilson —I do not remember the rest. 6. Baker and Jackson were lost in the explosion ?—Yes. 7. On the previous fortnight, where did those men meet you ? —ln the little dip. 8. Did you on that occasion take the horse round to the little dip by the same road which you followed on the morning of the accident ? —Yes. 9. And which'way did the other men come to you ? —Through No. 5. 10. What did you do at the little dip ?—I was sent there to draw rails and take them to No. 5. 11. The whole of "you ? —Yes, seven of us. 12. And you all took them down to the door and had put them through ? —Yes. 13. Can you*point"out*just where you'were at the time of the accident ?—Yes. [Spot pointed out by witness.] 14. Which way were you going ?—I was going along the old winch level, and in along the horseroad into the old workings. 15. Just where were the rails that you were to lift on the morning of the accident : were they at the same place as you were lifting them from on the fortnight previously ?—Yes. 6. In which bord was that ? —I could not say. It was in Legg's bord.
10—C. 14.
C—l 4:
74
[j. M. BROWNLIE.
17. Can you indicate which side of Legg's bord ?—No. 18. Did you notice falls between the place where the rails were and the door where you were to put them ?—I noticed them when I was driving there. I think it is the second bord off the trap-door. 19. That is the old fall ?—Yes. 20. How far were the rails from that spot ?—1 could not tell you. 21. How many bords away ?—I think it was the fourth bord away ; but lam not sure. 22. Did you notice some rails at that fall ?—No ; I was not in it that day. 23. You mean you were not in that particular place when you went there into that section a fortnight before ?—That is so. 24. Were you in old workings when you were struck by the blast ?—They are old workings now. 25. When you were in there on the morning of the accident, would you call them old workings then ?—Yes. 26. Did you pass through any doors leading to that spot ?—Two doors. 27. Were they open or shut ?—Shut. 28. Were they locked ? —No. 29. Were there any locks on them ?—No. 30. Did anybody give you any special instructions as to opening or closing those doors ? —You do not need to close them—the wind closes them. 31. Was anybody there looking after the opening and closing of those doors ?—No. 32. Are any of the bords that you passed, forming part of the old workings, fenced in any way ?— Yes. 33. Are all of them fenced, or how many, about ?—Nearly all of them are fenced along the old horse-road. 34. I mean those leading down No. 5, near where the rails were to be lifted : are any of those bords fenced ?—Not that I know of; Ido not think so. 35. Are any of the bords forming part of the old workings leading off the old horse-road unfenced ? --No, I think they are all fenced in. 36. Why was it that you went on that roundabout journey to get to that point ?—Because I could not get the horse through the trap-door—it was too small. 37. The more direct route was through the trap-door, but you could not get through that way owing to the presence of the horse ?—Yes. 38. Was there any other way for you to get there except that way ?—I could have got there by going through No. 5. 39. Were you able to go through the dip with your horse ?—Yes, the way I did. 40. You expected the other men to come through the trap-door to meet you ?—Yes. 41. Was that in consequence of anything you heard from Deputy Smith ?—Yes. 42. What did he say ?—That I was to go that way, and that he would send the other men down the other road. 43. Did he use the words, " the other road " ?—That is what I understood he would do. 44. What were Deputy Smith's words when he told you about these other men ?—He said he would send over four men down to meet me. 45. Did he indicate which way they would come ?—That is the only way that I know of. 46. Answer my question, please : did he indicate which way they would come ?—No. 47. Did he mention that trap-door ?—No. 48. Did he mention which way they were coming ?—No, he did not. 49. Mr. Tunics : ] Are you quite sure that it was the fortnight previously that you went to draw rails ? Was not the mine working the previous fortnight ?—I do not think so. 50. Are you quite sure ?—I would not say ;I am not sure. 51. If the mine had been working you would have been at your working-place ?—Yes, at No. 6. 52. You would only have been drawing rails if it was an off Saturday ?—Yes. 53. You are not quite clear whether the mine was working or not on the Saturday a fortnight previous ?—No. 54. Did I understand you to say that you saw Darby or Smith. ?—Darby. 55. He was at the telephone, and after he had been at the telephone did you get your instructions where you were to go ? —Yes. 56. Then, may I understand this : that you would not have started until you got your instructions from Darby ?—From Smith. 57. I mean from Darby at the telephone, who got them from Smith % —No. 58. You did not hear what Darby was saying at the telephone ?—No. 59. But did you know that that telephone connected with No. 6 cabin ?—Yes. 60. And that the usual routine was for the deputy to ring up No. 6 cabin before the men started to work ?—Yes. 61. And get the word from the examining deputies ?—Yes. 62. Then, when you were waiting for the word to start on your round did you know where these men were ?—No. 63. You did not know where Allen, Roper, Baker, Jackson, and Martin had gone to ?—No. 64. You said, I think, that you had seen the old fall in No. 5 alongside the bord with the trapdoor when you were driving there : how long ago ?—Before the strike. 65. Which trap-door did you mean—the one that is blown out since the explosion ? —The small door at No. 5 section. 66. You say that that had existed there at the time of the strike ?—Yes. 67. Were you working there then ?—I was a horse-driver on that section.
C.-14.'
J. M. BROWNLIE.]
75
68. Are you quite sure of the bord in which the fall was—that it was in the bord alongside the one that had the trap-door ?—I would not be quite sure, but 1 have not been in any other bord since the strike. 69. Was it there that you were going for the rails on this occasion ( —Not where the fall was. 70. Did you see the fall frequently before the strike ?—Ckice when I went up for a trucker. 7.1. Where was he working ?—Up close to the fall. 72. Through that door ?—ln the little dip, this was. 73. Was that door in when you were driving there ?—No. 74. So that that door has only recently been put in ? —I think so. 75. Was it not there before the strike ?—Not that I know of. 76. Do I understand that you are not able to say exactly where the rails were which you were going to lift that morning ?—I could not say the number of the bord. 77. Were they in the same bord from which you had taken them previously I —Yes. 78. Had Martin been with you previously ?—No. 79. Did you know that Martin was going up with you on the 12th ?- —No. 80. You say you did not expect to find him there ?—No ; I did not see him at all that morning. 81. Well then, you say the trap-door was not there when you were driving there. Was there any stopping there at all ?—1 do not think that bord was through when I went up there that day. 82. And you were only there the once ?—Yes. 83. Are you working in the mine now ?—No. 84. On the previous occasion did you take the tails through that trap-door ?—Yes. 85. But you did not see the fall ?—No. 86. You were working there the whole day on that previous occasion ?—Yes. 87. And the same deputy was there ?—Yes. 88. Deputy Darby was also in charge on the previous occasion ?—Yes. 89. Did Deputy Smith come anywhere near you on the previous occasion ?- -Yes ; he was in before us that morning. 90. Into this place where you were to draw the rails from ?—Yes. 91. So that before you went into it the deputy was before you on the previous occasion { —Yes. 92. And it was the same deputy who was in charge on the 12th ?-Yes. 93. Do you know which way the deputy went in on the previous occasion '(■-- He must have gone through the door. 94. With his safety-lamp ?-—Yes. 95. The Chairman.\ Were there any instructions given to you and the men as to entering these old workings ? Are there any general instructions given to workmen in regard to entering these old workings ?—I could not say whether there are or not. 96. Have you ever been told ?—-Yes ; 1 have been told often not to go into the old workings. 97. Do you know of any other men who have been told ?—I do not know. 98. Mr. Dowgray :] You say that on the fortnight previously the deputy had been in that part of the mine. What indications have you that he was there ?—He was there when I went in—l saw him. 99. He must have come round the other way. Did he give you your instructions at the shaftbottom in the same way as he djd on the 12th ? Was it Deputy Smith you saw before you went down the old dip ?—Yes. 100. And it was Deputy Smith on a former occasion, too ?—Yes. 101. He sent you down the same way T- —Yes. 102. But when you got down to that part of the mine he was there ?—Yes. 103. He visited it along with the other men ?—The other men were not with me that morning. 104. He had got in before the other men ?—Yes. 105. Were Deputy Darby and Deputy Smith together that morning ?—Yes. 106. On that occasion when you arrived at this door the deputy was in there making his inspection ?—Yes. 107. Had he a satefy-lamp with him I —Yes. 1.08. On the occasion a fortnight previous to the 12th, when you arrived at the cabin you went the same way you were told to go on the 12th. You met Deputy Smith when you reached the point to which you were going ?—Yes. 109. Then he must have made his inspection after he sent you down the little dip ?—He must have. 110. He was not amongst the men who were discovered on the No. 5 side of the door ?—I could not say. 111. Did the deputy give you just the same instructions on the 12th as he did on the previous occasion ?—Yes, he told me to go to the same place where I was a fortnight before. He told me that on the Friday morning going to work. He did not say whether there would be anybody coming down to see us. 112. What was the custom in this mine : does the deputy tell everybody that the place is safe ?— I do not know. 113. How do you know that the mine is safe ?—They ring up and the deputy tells us to go —that it is all safe. 114. He did not tell you that that particular place was safe that morning ?—No. 115. On the previous occasion had you to get your horse after . Deputy Smith had passed you down the little dip ?—-Yes. 116. And that would take some little time ?—About eight minutes from the shaft to the stable.
C—l 4
J. M. BROWNLIE.
117. And how long to get the harness on I —Not very long. 118. Mr. Napier.] You said that on the previous occasion the deputy told you to go along—that it was the mine ?—Yes. 119. Was thatjjustom observed previous occasion—a : you said he rang up and got the answer " All safe " ?—He said, "All safe." t 120. You are speaking of what happened a fortnight before the 12th ?—Yes. k 121. And_that was the custom ?—^es. m You would_not go to work on any morning unless you got that word ?—No. Now, coming to the morning of the accident, have you any doubt that a similar word was given to you by the deputy before you started ?—No. y 124. You have no doubt ?—No. 125. Mr. Dowgray.] lam not at all clear in regard to this matter. Pay-Saturday is a different day from a working-day ?—Yes. 126. What was the usual custom in this particular|mine 1 What term does the deputy use on such mornings ?—He told me I had to go to No. 5 through the dip to draw the rails there into No. 5. On that particular morning did he use the term that it was " All safe " ?—He said it was " all right," and that I was to go to No. 6 cabin, and that the others would be told where they had to go. He would send me through into the dip with my horse that morning. 128. He told you to go to No. 6 cabin ?—He told every one to go to No. 6, but I had to go to the stables and get my horse. 129. Where were these other men going ?—1 cannot say-—some to different parts. And the word " All right " was meant in a general sense. 130. Did he say, " You can go down the little_dip— all-right there " ? —No. 131. He said, " You can go, boys, she is all right " ?—Yes. 132. The Chairman.] What do you suppose he meant by the words " all right " : what does that convey to your mind ?—That the mine was safe and that we could go on with our work. 133. Mr. Dowgray.] What impression had you when you met the deputy on the previous occasion ? —I never thought anything. 134. Did you not think he should be safety-lamp ?—No. 135. Did the other fellows come after he left you ? When did the other men join you on the previous pay-Saturday—were they long after the deputy ?—No. ■
Joseph Young sworn and examined. (No. 8.) Witness read and put in his evidence given at inquest, as follows :— " Joseph Young, sworn, saith: lam a miner employed at the Huntly Mine. Up to about a fortnight before the 12th September I was employed with Mr. Wear inspecting the old workings. I had been employed at this for about two years. The results of the inspections would be reported in the book every day. I wrote the reports, and Mr. Wear signed them. 1 have also signed the reports. On the 23rd March, 1914, we found a large accumulation of gas in No. 7 working. Gas was also found oh a second occasion on the 14th April. We found gas in 5, 6, 7, and 8 bords in No. 7 south, occurring at intervals of three weeks, and came to the conclusion there was something wrong with the fan. The reports do not state the extent of gas. I cannot say that steps were not taken to remedy the presence of gas when it was reported. We could not visit that place for another week. We have found gas in No. 5 south, little winch level in the little dip section, No. 7 north, and No. 7 south. In my opinion, the gas found in these places was in dangerous quantities. Gas was found in the winch level in the little dip section on 29th April. 1 think this is the last occasion gas was found in that level; the level was inspected every week. There is a good bit of dust in that level. I would not consider it the dustiest part of the mine. There were four fairly big falls there. I did not see any indication of spontaneous combustion having taken place there, nowhere in that section. Ido not think we tested for spontaneous combustion, as we did not think it necessary. I have had twenty-five years' experience of mining. If we found a small quantity of gas —under 2 per cent. —I would not consider it dangerous. We would make a test at every face, or where there had been a fall. We would average one fall a month. This is a rough estimate and probably excessive. "By Mr. Tunks : The four falls were composed of fireclay and coal. These are the falls we expect to liberate gas. This material could generate spontaneous combustion. It is only a rough guess to say there is a fall every month—that is counting the big and the little. Every fall would be reported in the book. " By Mr. Dixon : I have known men go into the old workings instead of the lavatory with naked lights. I consider it dangerous. I reported it verbally. In some parts they would only have to step through the fence. The miners would know they should not go there. A copy of the Coal-mines Act and regulations is posted up at the pit-head. "By Mr. Napier : I vouch for the accuracy of these reports. All falls ought to be reported. If they are not in the book they ought to have been. The falls that I mentioned were all reported. There were no falls recorded in the month of August. When I vouch for the accuracy of the reports I only vouch for the reports in my handwriting. I believe the other portion is equally accurate. When we visited a place where gas was reported a week later we sometimes found gas there, but in different quantities. It was our duty to report the discovery of gas in any quantity. Anything over 2 per cent. I should report. The book does not distinguish between dangerous quantities of gas and otherwise. Every quantity of gas I should consider dangerous. Ido not agree with Mr. Wear's opinion that gas was only dangerous on one occasion, or on two occasions at the outside. Any gas I discovered in the mine 1 would report irrespective of quantity. You could not tell from the book whether the gas men-
76
77
C—l 4.
J. YOUNG.
tioned was in dangerous quantities or not. If we Jiad considered it necessary to test for combustion with the iron bars we would have done so. The 14th August was the last day I inspected. I usually agreed with Mr. Wear in the opinion he formed of the inspection. We got on well together. " Re-examined: George Hancock was one man who was going into the old workings, and Mr. Wear stopped him. I have found traces of men having been in the old workings on other occasions. I have seen their lights there. I would mention the matter to Mr. Wear. It was a common occurrence for men to go into the old workings instead of going into the lavatories. I have warned men from time to time. I it to Mr. Wear on occasions. '" By jury : I left the position with Mr. Wear through bad health. It was|a case'of slow poisoning duetto carbonic air being pollutedjby men, horses, and shooting. " By Mr. Dixon : I may have said to you before the explosion that there might be an explosion. 1 don't remember saying it, but I may have said it after discovering the two big accumulations of gas." 1. Mr. Wilford.] Have you passed the gas test, Mr. Young ?—Yes. 2. Under whom ?—Under Mr. Prank Reed, the Government Inspecting Engineer of Mines. I have my certificate here if you wish to see it [certificate produced and read by witness as follows] :— " Department of Mines Court, 20th December, 1913.—This is to certify that Joseph Young, of Huntly, has proved his ability to distinguish with a miner's safety-lamp the correct percentage of methane (firedamp) present in mine-air.—Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines." 3. Mr. Wear has no certificate such as you have ?—That is so. 4. As a matter of fact, did you leave that mine because you were in ill health, or because you feared a catastrophe ? —I left the mine through bad health as the result of working in it. I have not a doctor's certificate to that effect, but I can get one if it is necessary, because I know the doctor is prepared to corroborate my statements. He told me I was suffering from slow poisoning by carbonic-acid gas in the mine. 5. You have been twenty-five years in mines ?---Fully that. I was thirteen years of I first went into the mines. 6. Where was that ?—Kaitangata. 7. Were not you really of opinion that there was trouble coming in Ralph's Mine because of the gas ?—I did not like it. The accumulations were too large for me, but a man gets careless and is apt to take no notice. 8. Did not the fact that there was a possibility of an explosion down in the mine cause you a good deal of concern and worry ? —I will admit that it did on two occasions. 9. What were those special occasions ? —You will find them, in the book—accumulations of gas in No. 7 south. 10. That was on the 23rd March, 1914 ? —1 could not swear to the date, but it is in the book. 11. Is this the book [book preduced] ?—Yes. 12. The date is 23rd March. I understand you found a large accumulation of gas in No. 7 south ?—There was a large accumulation of gas, but whether it was on that date I could not say. 13. That was the report quoted at the Coroner's inquest ? —But as I say, I could not swear to the date. 14. What do you mean by " a large accumluation " ?—I mean hundreds of thousands of cubic feet. 15. Do you mean hundreds or thousands ? —I mean anything up to a hundred cubic feet. 16. As much as a hundred ?—Yes. 17. More than that ? —Yes. I will work out the amount of gas that was present on that occasion. [After figuring] I say there was over 30,000 cubic feet of gas —33,600 cubic feet, I make it. 18. Will you tell us how you arrive at that ? —1 reckon there were four bords, 14 ft. by 6 ft. high. 1 am allowing that you could not get within 100 ft. of the place. 19. Now, did you make any special report on that startling discovery ? —Mr. Wear went for the underviewer on one occasion. I went myself on another occasion. 20. Did you make a special report ?—lt is there in the book. 21. He did not mention the quantities of gas there ? —No, you never do. 22. Now, will you look at this report-book and the report in it dated 14/4/14 [book handed to witness] : is that your report ?—That is my handwriting. 23. That is your report, is it not ? —Yes. " I, the undersigned, have examined old workings and return airways in the above-named sections (Nos. 6 and 7 south sections); found gas in 5, 6, 7, and 8 bords ; No. 7 south section ventilation bad ; No. 6 section safe, no sign of heating, ventilation good." 24. Did not these discoveries of gas recur —that is to say, did not you find them at intervals of a few weeks I—Yes,1 —Yes, but not in such vast quantities. 25. You know which is No. 5 south, little winch level I—Yes.1 —Yes. 26. Have you found gas in No. 5 south, little winch level ?—I think that is a mistake. There is no winch in No. 5 south. 27. Is that not your signature [report produced] ? —Yes. " We have found gas in No. 5, little winch level in the little dip section," and so on. But that means they are all different places, and not that the little winch level is in No. 5. This report is quite correct. ... 28. In your opinion, unquestionably the gas was found in dangerous quantities because it is over 2 per cent. ?—Yes, that is what I have said all along. 29. Now, on the 29th April, 1914, your book says, " No. 1. Limb's heading and little dip north section : 1, the undersigned, have examined old workings and return airways in the above-named section ; found gas in three fall little dip section. All rest of sections safe. No sign of heating. Ventilation good " ? —Yes, that is right.
C—l 4.
|_J. YOUNG,
30. Whereabouts is that point on the plan ? —[Witness indicated point on plan.] 31. That is about the locality referred to in your report of the 29th April, 1914- ?—Yes, sir. 32. Is there a good deal of dust in that part ? —-No, there is dust there; but it is not the dustiest part of the mine. 33. Which do you consider the dustiest part of the mine ? —Close to the travelling-road where most of the men travel. [Plan, Exhibit AA, discussed by witness with Mr. Wilford], 34. Do you know bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 ?—Yes, I know them. 35. Do you know where the big fall is ? —Yes, the first bord down on the left. 36. Do you know the new fall at No. 6 ?—No. 37. Do you know this door ? —Yes. 38. Was it ever locked ? —No. 39. Has it got a lock on it ? —Not that I know of. 40. At the other end is the bord fenced off ?—1 do not know that that particular one. is fenced off, but they are fenced off along the roadway. 41. You said in your evidence before the Coroner, " We would make a test at every face or where there had been a fall. We would average one fall a month." That, of course, you qualified by saying that it was only a rough estimate and might probably be excessive. You also said there were four fairly big falls there : where were you referring to ?- In this little winch level. That was one of them which we have been speaking about. 42. In this particular bord we are discussing, in No. 5, is one of the falls referred to by you. You say there are four fairly large falls: where were the other three ?—There are two on this side of it, nearer the winch. 43. Nearer No. 5 section ? -No, further away from No. 5 section. 44. Do you know of any man getting burnt while you were there ?—Everybody knows about Kelly getting burnt. 45. Do you know whether Kelly was burnt twice ?—I could not say. You do not want hearsay evidence —then I do not know. 46. Do you know the names of any men who were burnt except Kelly ?—No. 47. Is that the only man you know of being burnt ? Yes. I have never seen anybody else but Kelly. I knew that he was burnt because I saw him afterwards. 48. Did you know of Conn being burnt ?—Yes, but that was in the Extended Mme —I was speaking of Ralph's. 49. Do you know of any occasions when men have been drilling holes and got a flame —that was in Ralph's ?—You mean, have I seen it ? I say, No. 50. Mr. Napier.] I think you told us that you were suffering from carbonic-acid-gas poisoning ?— That is so, sir. 51. And that that was the reason why you left the mine ? —Yes. 52. I suppose you believed that there was a large quantity of carbonic-acid gas in the mine ? —1 did not say so. 53. But was there ? —No. 1 was in it so long that it was beginning to affect me. 54. Was there only a little of it there ?—I have no means of answering that question. 55. Then you cannot give us any idea of the quantity ? —I only know it was there. 56. And I suppose you breathed it ?—Yes. 57. When you went round on your inspection did you walk ?—Yes. 58. Upright?--Yes. 59. You did not crawl on your hands and knees ? —No. 60. Do you say you breathed the carbonic-acid gas as you walked ? —That is so, sir. 61. You did not find much inconvenience, 1 suppose, from breathing the carbonic-acid gas at the time, but it was only your being so continuously there which weakened your health ?—Yes, only at times you could tell it was there. You could not get the extreme limit. I have never lost my light. 62. I suppose you would lose your light in carbonic-acid gas ? —Yes, at the extreme limit. 63. The mixture of gas with carbonic-acid gas would tend to make an explosion more possible ?— I do not think so. 64. I mean to say, would firedamp and carbonic-acid gas be likely to explode ? — Yes, but I was not speaking of firedamp. 65. But I want your opinion ?—I have no opinion on that question. 66. You have said that there would probably be. an explosion in the mine ? I do not say I admit that. 67. Do you deny it ? —lt is probable, but 1 could not swear to it. 68. You said that probably there would be an explosion. Had you in mind the carbonic-acid gas and the injury it was doing you ? —Yes. 69. Then you believed, of course, that the presence of carbonic-acid gas might tend to make an explosion if ignited ? —No, Ido not know too much about it. This gas is a non-supporter of life and combustion :it will not explode. You are speaking about C0 2 . It has nothing to do with an explosion. 70. Then, when you spoke to those persons about an explosion you had not in mind the presence of carbonic-acid gas ? —Certainly not. 71. What is the position of carbonic-acid gas- -where is it found ? —lt has been found in the roof as a mixture. 72. Then, it is not found near the floor ?—lt is always found near the floor. 73. Did you continually breathe it at your own height when walking through the mine ? —That is so. You must also remember that a man has to stoop down and write his date on the floor very often. 74. Was that the case with you -that you only detected the carbonic-acid gas when you stooped down ] — That is not so.
78
79
C—l 4
■J. YOUNG.
75. You really felt it when yon were walking through ? —Yes. 76. In answer to Mr. Wilford you said that you found that these accumulations were recurring ? -Yes. 77. That is, of course, coming back ? —They were there on different occasions. 78. Does that mean that they disappeared or were removed, and that other gas came in similar quantities ? —T could not answer that question. lam only speaking of my examination. 79. I wanted to find out the meaning of your own language. Mr. Wilford said " recurring " and you agreed. I want to see whether you mean that ?—lt is not fair to ask me to swear that that was the same gas. 80. I want to know what you meant by the evidence you gave this morning. You said you found large accumulations of gas at recurring intervals ?—Yes. 81. Was that gas of the same kind—is that what you meant ?—That is so. 82. Do I understand you to say that what you meant was that the gas had been removed from time to time, and then that the gas came back again ?—I could not say. 83. Do you suggest that it was the same body of gas ?—I do not suggest anything. 84.. You do not suggest anything ?—Not as regards that. 85. Either the gas remained or it was removed ?—That is clear. 86. What is your opinion : did it remain in its original state, or was it removed and did it come back later ?-—T could not answer that question. All that I know is that the gas was there several times. 87. lam afraid that is not sufficient. You said you found the gas at recurring intervals—that was, that there was gas there from time to time ?-—I will not swear that that was the same gas. All that I know was that the gas was there. 88. Was the gas removed after your report had been made in the book ?—I do not know. 89. Did you always report the presence of gas ?—Yes; I saw by the book that it was removed, according to Mr. McGill's report, and I expect that is right. 90. If you found gas and you reported it in the book, and then afterwards you did not find gas on your subsequent visit, would the inference be that it had been removed or become diffused ?—lf we found gas on one visit, and then the next time there was no gas, any intelligent person would know that the gas has been removed or diluted. 91. Your conclusion, as an intelligent person, would be that the gas had been removed or dissipated ■? Yes. 92. How long were you inspecting ?—I was not inspecting-—only assisting. 93. How long ?—Two years. 94. I suppose that you would consider that 33,600 cubic feet of gas was a dangerous quantity ?.— Yes. 95. Would you not consider it your duty to report that quantity either to the underviewer or the manager, so as to endeavour to protect your fellow-men ?—You will see that the underviewer was informed on both those occasions. 96. You informed the underviewer that there was over 30,000 feet of gas ?—No, we did not mention an} r quantity. We brought him in and showed him the gas. On one occasion they disputed my accuracy. T said there was 2 per cent., and they said 7 per cent., but they went higher up than where I tested. 97. On one occasion you reported to the sub-manager the presence of gas, and he disagreed with you as to the quantity ?—Yes. 98. Can you say whether anything was done by him or under his orders to remove that gas ?—I would not know, but there must have been something done because there was none there next time. 99. Then something must have been done ?—Yes. 100. And I suppose you passed this place once a week ?—Yes. 101. So that you passed the place where there was 30,000 cubic feet of gas, say, one hundred times ?—ln two years; yes, easily. 102. And on two occasions only there were large accumulations ?—Yes. 103. And they were removed or dissipated during the week ?—Yes. 104. Was it a flare-out, or a small escape of gas which accumulated between the dates of your inspection ?—lt came from a feeder. 105. A small feeder emitting the gas all the time between the dates of your inspections ?—Yes. 106. When you found the 33,000 feet of gas it must have been fairly stagnant: was it moving ? If so, then the gas was being diffused by air-current ?—Quite correct. 107. On the second occasion when you discovered the 30,000 ft. of gas, was the sub-manager there ? —On the two occasions he was there. 108. Have you any idea whether proper steps were taken to dissipate that gas ?—I suppose you are aware that we realized the danger when we went for the underviewer. 109. Have you any doubt that he did not take precautions ?—I do not know. 1.10. The disappearance of the gas is the best proof ?—That is so. 111. Do you know how the gas would be dissipated except in the natural way by ventilation ?— T do not know any other way. 112. You do not know what special steps can be taken ?—I know what should be done. 113. You should shift it with ventilation : was that done ?—lt must have been done, because the gas disappeared. 114. Didiyou reportjany inadequate ventilation] near] wherej thisj gas] was ?- -The fact of the gas being there showed lack of air. 115. You made no special report about the 30,000 ft. : did you discuss with Wear the amount ? —No,
C— M
80
[j. YOUNG.
116. Did you discuss with him how deep it went into the place ?—He could see for himself. 117. He disagreed with you at times ?—There was an error of judgment on his part. He forgot I had left there three or four weeks. 118. What date was that ?—About a couple of months ago. 119. As a matter of fact, you wrote all Mr. Wear's reports ?—Yes. 120. And he signed them ?—Yes, after I had read them out to him. 121. You concurred in the report ?—I do not know ;he was the man in charge of the work. 122. You do not know whether you agreed with his reports ?—I do not know that I was responsible for the reports. 123. But you agreed that what you had written down was a fair account of what was seen ?— Yes, I think so. 124. Did Mr. Wear dictate the words to you ?—No, not necessarily so. 125. They were your own words ?—Probably I might refer to him as to where we found gas. It was read over to him. 126. You do not think you should have specially referred to the finding of gas in the book ?— No, when I report gas I always consider there is danger. 127. So that if gas had been found in very small quantities on ten occasions, and you reported it " Gas discovered," the management might be misled if they assumed that you had discovered it in smaller quantities ?—That would be the manager's business. 128. Always to go and assume the quantity when you reported it ?—I did not say that, but T consider that my duty ended there. 1.29. Without in any way testing the quantity % —Yes, we may have mentioned it verbally. 130. Do you suggest that you or Wear mentioned the quantity ?—No, the presence of gas in large quantity. 131. You say you considered the dustiest part of the mine was the haulage-road ?—No, I said the travelling-road. 132. And you said the reason for that was that the men walking up and down ground down the floor and made it dusty ?—That is so. 133. What is the floor ?—Fireclay and stone, and in some places coal. 134. How much stone floor is there, and how much fireclay ?—I could not say, only I remember places where there is more than 50 per cent, of stone. 135. You are aware that the central portion was watered ?—Yes. 136. In that part the traffic of the men would not make it dusty ?—No. 137. The men have told us that there was too much water —that it was slushy ?—Yes, that is so, to my knowledge. 138. Mr. Tunks.] When did you get this gas-testing ticket, Mr. Young ?—2oth December, 1913. 139. Where were you tested ?—At the Auckland Exhibition. 140. Who made the test ?—To the best of my knowledge, it was Mr. Reed. , 141. Were you shown a diagram before the test was made ?—Yes, I had all those instructions. 142. You mean, immediately before the test was made ?—You saw the diagram ; it illustrates the various heights and percentages. 143. And directly after that you were shown the lamp in its testing-place ?—Yes. 144. I suppose if I had been present and had been able to" see ;thejgas I could have got a certificate, too ?—I am not too sure about that. 145. Had you to answer any questions in regard to mining ?—No, I do not think so. 146. Now, you have told us that on two occasions you found a large quantity of gas—24th March and 14th April ?—I did not swear to the dates. 147. Which was the occasion on which the large quantity was discovered ?—TheyJ'wereJboth large quantities. 148. You cannot say those are the dates ?—No, but to the best ot my knowledge they are. 149. You had one in March and one in April ?—Yes, I think those were the dates. 150. Why did you not leave the mine, then, if they frightened you ?—Familiarity breeds contempt : I suppose that was the reason. 151. Did you report these accumulations to anybody else except the under-manager ?—No.. 152. You did not mention them to an} r of the men ?—-Not that lam aware of. One man says that I did, but I do not remember it. 153. You did not report them to any person connected with the union or anything of that sort' —No, certainly not. 154. Did Mr. Wear ever tell you what he put in the report-book ?—I could not say that he did, because each report is so similar. If you get gas you report it, if you do not get gas you say nothing about it: that is the difference. 155. You had a free hand as to what you should put in the report-book ?—No, T c< 'ild not pu< in anything I liked. 156. Did you have any argument as to what should go in ?—No. 157. You always agreed ?—Yes. 158. How long ago is it since you left the mine ?—About five or six weeks. 159. So, notwithstanding these large accumulations of gas, you remained in the mine from April until five or six weeks ago ?—That is so. 160. What are you doing now ?—I have not been doing anything particular for two or three weeks. 161. Nothing at all ?—A few days in the bar. 162. Have you previously worked in the bar while you were in the mine ? —Yes, in the evenings. 163. A fair amount of carbonic-acid gas there I —T do not know.
J. YOUNG.]
81
C—l 4.
164. Mr. Macassey.] If you considered this mine so dangerous, why did you not report the matter to the Inspector of Mines ?—I was only an assistant. 165. Or report it to the manager ?—"What sort of a time would I have had if I had done that ? 166. So that notwithstanding that the mine was dangerous to your fellow-workmen you did not report it either to the manager or the Inspector ? —No, the manager knew all about it. 167. The Chairman.'] You say that this accumulation of gas measured 33,600 ft. : that was got out of four bords, 14 ft. by 6 ft. Were those bords all connected ?—Yes, they were all connected by cut-throughs. 168. That was one lot of gas ?—ln one part of the mine. 169. And there was another accumulation in another part ?—Yes. 170. Will you describe the effect which this carbonic-acid gas had on your health ?—I consider that I was there too long. After about eighteen months I felt it affecting me; I got a nasty yellow colour ; I could not eat, or sleep, or smoke. 171. Did it affect any other men in the same way ?—Yes, there was a man there before me who got the same trouble. 172. Why do you attribute it to the carbonic-acid gas ?—The doctor told me that was his opinion. 173. Carbonic-acid gas is heavier than air ?—Yes. 174. If you breathe it at the height at which you walk that would indicate that the drive was full of it ?—We have some eminent men who tell us that CO 2 is found in the roof. 175. But it was diluted with gas ?—I would be stooping down—that would be 18 in. or 2 ft. from the ground. 176. How do you account for other people not feeling it ? —There was another man to whom I referred. 177. That is only two ?—We have been doing that work too long., 178. Mr. Dowqray.] I believe you said that you wrote all the reports when you travelled with Mr. Wear ?—That is so, 179. Why had you to write them ?—Mr. Wear is not a very good scholar. 180. Is he altogether illiterate ?—He can sign his name, as you can see in the report-book. 181. So that if you say you found 36,000 ft. of gas in a place, he would have no method of showing whether you were right or wrong ?—I did not tell him. 182. He would not have any method of finding it out ?—No, though he is very good at mental arithmetic. 183. He could have worked out the amount of gas ?—No, I do not think so. 1.84. Owing to his being illiterate you had to write his report ?—Yes. 185. In reply to a question by Mr. Napier you said you got a 2-per-cent. test in one place, and that the manager disputed it and he got a 7-per-cent. test. Mr. Napier put it to you as to whether it was not a sure sign that the gas was being diluted. Would it not follow that they were further in than you ? — That was so. He wanted to say that the gas was moving. 186. You get a higher test by going into it ?—Yes. 187. You suggested that the gas was not moving ?—I said it was not moving. 188. The gas is stationary ?—Yes. 189. There is only one method of shifting gas or diluting it—by ventilation ?—Yes. 190. If precautions were taken to remove that gas by ventilation, on your next visit would you not be able to see the method that had been adopted ? If brattice had been used it would still be there ? —Yes. 191. When you returned was brattice there ?—ln some cases it was just the same. It was old workings, and probably the intakes had been interfered with. A little air might have been taken from the intake airway. 192. But there were no particular signs where you entered that place ?—Yes, I have been there and put it there myself. 193. How would you account for such an amount of carbonic-acid gas in the return airways that it was harmful to your health ?—ln the old workings there were places where the ventilation was not good. There was decaying vegetation. 194. Would there be carbonic-acid gas if the ventilation was good ?—No. 195. If the ventilation was fair would there be sufficient carbonic-acid gas to injure your health ? —No. 196. When you were asked why you did not report this large amount of gas to the Inspector of Mines you said, " What sort of a time would I have had ? " What did you mean by that ?—I would have been exceeding my duty. That was the manager's duty. 197. Do you not go past what is other men's duty to report anything dangerous ?—No. 198. Have you passed as a deputy ?—Yes, but I was acting only as a shiftman. 199. You said, " What sort of a time would I have had 1 " Do you think the manager would have reprimanded you for exceeding your duty ? Would the manager have given you a " hot time " ? —I think I would have been overstepping my duty, and the manager would have been justified in penalizing me. 200. But the manager would not inspect that book every day ?—Yes, his signature is in it. 201. You admitted that you considered the large amount of gas was dangerous ?—Certainly it was. I still stick to my first statement that any gas in sufficient quantity for me to report is dangerous. That is my idea. The fact of my reporting it and of their removing it is also proof that it was dangerous. 202. In regard to that question put to you by Mr. Wilford and by Mr. Napier as to the gas recurring, do you mean that you discovered it in one place and when you returned to it it was there
11—C. 14.
C—l 4.
82
[J. YOUNG-
again ?—When we came back to examine that place we found it in the same condition as it was before. 203. When you came back the same condition prevailed ; you could not tell whether the gas had been removed or not ?—When we found there was no gas there we came to the conclusion that it had been removed. 204. If the brattice had been put there it would still be there ?—Yes, it was still in No. 7 south when I was there last. 205. Then the defect must have been somewhere else in the mine ?—lt must have been. 206. Mr. Brown.'] Were you there when the manager and Mr. Wear went into those bords in No. 7 south, where you claimed there was 33,300 ft. of gas ? You said somebody went with you : How much farther in the bords did he get than you ?—I should say, about 50 ft. 207. Then you made your calculation from where you stood ?—Yes, that is so ; but I allowed another 100 ft. 208. But if the manager could get in much farther than you had got in there could not have been that quantity in those bords ? I was standing on a form, and they went up the bord and were sitting down and had their lamps on the floor. 209. Did you assume that the bords were full of gas from a given point ?—Yes, from where they tested. 210. Is your calculation based on from where they tested ?—Yes. 211. Now, I think you said that you were afraid that it was dangerous ?—Yes, I was a bit afraid. I admit I did not like it. 212. In the interests of all concerned do you not think it was your duty to make some special report upon this matter ?—No, I was not worrying about that trouble much. 213. I think you led the Commission to believe that possibly you would get a bad time for overstepping your duty if you reported these things ?—I still think that. 214. Are you aware that there is provision in the Coal-mines Act whereby you could lay a complaint to the Inspector of Mines —sections 50 and 51 ?—Yes, probably ; but a man would be very officious to do that. 215. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that there is a clause to protect you even if you desired to inform the Inspector of Mines that there was danger there. You could do so, and he would investigate it ?—I was not the Inspector—l was simply assisting him. Ido not see how I neglected my duty. I will humbly admit it if you can point it out. 216. The Chairman.] You know the provisions of sections 50 and 51 of the Coal-mines Act ?— Yes, but I still hold that we have done our duty. Mr. Tunks : I would like to place it on record that the 23rd March was a Monday, and that the 14th April was the Tuesday after Easter Monday. Alexander Penman,. Acting-manager, Ralph's Mine, sworn and examined. (No. 9.) 1. Mr. Wiljord.] Were you down to the locality of bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6, shown on the plan marked AA, last Friday ?—Yes. 2. Were you in the place last Friday, near No. 6 bord, where Martin's body was found ?—Yes, I accompanied Mr. Morgan and Mr. Eeed. 3. Were you in the vicinity of the new fall ?—Yes. 4. Were you where the old fall was ?—Yes. 5. I have marked a point on this plan [Exhibit AA] WX. Is that about the. position where you saw the rails that day ? —No, they were here [point indicated] at AP. 6. That is where you saw the rails last Friday ?—Yes. 7. Clear of the fall ? —Yes. The position of the fall is not strictly accurate, as the batter comes down to the point marked AP, and covers the end of the rails. 8. Mr. Tunks.] Are these rails torn up ready to be taken away, or lying in their ordinary position ? —They are lying in the position in which they were used. 9. Do they go right down the whole way ?—The sweep rails are lifted out. 10. And is there a large quantity or a small quantity ?—There are only two rails to be seen. 11. Had you ever worked in Ralph's Mine before the explosion ?—Four years ago. 12. But not immediately before ?—No. 13. The Chairman.] What do you mean when you say that there were only two rails to be seen ? Are there more rails there ? —The batter of the fall is over the end of the rails. Nobody knows how many are there. 14. You can only see two ?—Yes. 15. Mr. Brown.] How much of the rails are showing out from under the fall ?—lO or 12 ft. 16. And what length rails are they % —About 18 ft. rails. 17. You do not know ? —No. 18. There is 10 ft. or 12 ft. showing clear of the fall ?—Yes. William Wood, Manager, Extended Mine, Huntly, sworn and examined. (No. 10.) Witness reads evidence given by him at Coroner's inquest, as follows : — " William Wood, sworn, saith : I am a certificated mine-manager, and manager of the Extended Mine at Huntly. I heard of the explosion at Huntly on the 12th September, about 7.45. I organized a search-party and went down Ralph's shaft. I went to the top of the little dip, and could not get any farther for smoke. One of the deputies told me he thought the air was short-circuited, and three or four of us went down to the little dip and found that some of the doors had been blown away. These were the doors in the horse-road, and they were blown to pieces. We had to come back to the top of
W. WOOD.]
83
C—l 4.
tlie dip as the air was bad. We then went to Taupiri West shaft. From what I saw myself, and from what I heard, the figures on the plan Extended A represent approximately where the bodies were found. I went down the mine on Saturday last, 26th September. We travelled from the shaft and followed the road through the little dip, through the old dip, and came in by the winch level. We followed down the winch level to a point marked " Martin," and there we found the body of deceased Martin. It was not covered. It was in the old workings. I cannot say what he would be doing there. I was accompanied by Constable Wright and others. We merely got the body without examining the mine. I examined that portion of the mine yesterday in company with Professor Dixon and others. A cross within a square marks on the plan where there was a large accumulation of coaldust piled up against the pilar at the end of the bord. The dust appeared to have been blown down the bord from the direction of the body. In my opinion, the explosion originated in the vicinity where the body was found. The body was about a chain or chain and a half from the door marked on the plan. There was no sign of the door. We found bricks that had formed part of the stopping blown back to the spot marked with a circle with a cross in it. A fall had taken place apparently after the explosion, marked on the plan " New fall," and there was a fall which I took to be an old fall marked on the plan " Old fall." I have inspected other portions of the mine near where the explosion occurred. I have inspected all No. 5. All the signs show that the explosion originated at this spot. My opinion is that the explosion was caused by this man going into the old workings with a naked light. I have been in all the workings of the mine, except Taupiri West and No. 6 gig. The other parts have been examined by other parties. All the indications show that the explosion occurred at the place where I have indicated. I have never worked in Ralph's Mine. Ido not think it would have required a very violent explosion to have blown out the door. I attribute the disaster to gas and coaldust combined. I could not tell what the place had been like previous to the explosion. About 4 ft. from the floor we found a white scum in the bords. It was from the floor to 4 ft. high. The old fall was about a chain in length, but we could not see how high it extended. I cannot say how long before the explosion the fall occurred. It was inspected on the 9th September by Wear. It was prior to the explosion that this fall occurred. "By Mr. Bennie : There was fine dust against the pillar I have mentioned. "By Coroner : I think a weekly inspection of these old workings was sufficient. I still think so, provided that before men are sent to work in them an examination is made of them. " By Mr. Bennie : I have never known of any accumulation of gas in the old workings of Extended Mine. If there had been I should certainly have taken steps immediately to remove it." 1. The Chairman.] Have you anything further you would like to add to that statement ?—There is only this : now that I have had the opportunity to make a better examination of that scum to which I referred, I would like to say that I do not think it has been caused by the fireclay floor. 2. Mr. Wilford.] Do you know where Hopper's body was found ?—No, I scarcely knew any of the men in Ealph's. 3. It is No. 36 ?—That body was recovered on the night shift: I know nothing of it. ■I. If No. 36 marked on the plan is Hopper's body you know its relative position to Martin's body ? —Yes. 5. And you know the door at the end of bord No. 6 ?—Yes. 6. Would it be possible for anything to be hurled from the position where 43 is marked on the plan in No. 6 bord, where Martin's body was, through that doorway to where 36 is marked, or from 36 to 43 ? I want to know whether in your opinion any form of explosion could hurl an object from 36 to 43, or vice versa ? —Yes, I believe it could. 7. Either way ?—Yes. 8. That is to say, the open spaces are such that it would be possible for something in the vicinity of Martin's body (43) to be hurled to where 36 is shown ?—Yes. 9. Did you notice that Hopper's body had a foot off % —I do not know. 10. Did you see a spare boot beside Martin's body (43) ?—Yes. 11. With no foot in it ?—That is so. 12. No lace either ?—-No. 13. And the nails are hardly worn ?—That is so. 14. Do you know that Martin's body has two boots on ?—Yes. 15. That is, all the clothing on poor Martin was his boots ?—Yes. 16. It is quite clear that he had two boots on ?—Yes. 17. Therefore the boot that was alongside Martin's body was not one of the boots he was wearing ? —Certainly not. 18. It is possible it was a boot he was carrying—wildly possibly ?—Yes. 19. It is also possible he was carrying his coat ? —Yes. 20. His coat was not damaged ? —I do not know. I have not seen it. 21. There was no other clothing of Martin's found ? —I do not know. 22. You did not see any ? —I do not think so. 23. Where is that boot ? —The last time I saw it it was lying in the road. 24. You do not know whether Hopper had a foot missing ?—No. 25. If 36 is Hopper it is possible for an explosion to have carried something from one to the other —from Martin to Hopper, or from Hopper to Martin ?—Yes. % 26. Do you agree from the position of Martin's body that the probability is that he entered bord No. 6on the north end —the opposite end to the door end [plan explained] ? From the position of that body and the position of the coat, ahead of where the body is, does it look to you as if he entered at that end or came in through this door ?—My opinion now is that Martin came through the door. 27. It is higher there at the door than at the other end ? —Yes. 28. Therefore if this place had gas in it, the most gas was there at the higher end ?—Yes. 29. Therefore he would have to go through the most gas to the place where there is less gas ?—No, Ido not agree. Ido not hold that there was gas in that bord at all on the morning of the explosion. The gas came out when he opened that door.
C—l 4.
84
[W. WOOD.
30. Your suggestion is that he came through that door ?—Yes, and that that gas was exploded. Then more stuff fell and liberated a great accumulation of gas. 31. You have nothing to base that upon except your opinion ?—Yes, it is my opinion. 32. The fact that the coat is nearer the door than the body —does that lead you to believe that the explosion took place where Martin was ?—The explosion drove Martin's body north. 33. And it must also have gone over that fall ? —.No, that fall fell after the explosion. 34. And it must also have gone through the door and then round there and round to where Hopper and these men were ? —Yes. 35. Did you know that Martin was that morning going for rails ? —No, I didjnot know anything about Ralph's immediately prior to the explosion. 36. Mr. Alexander Penman has told us that there are two rails lying at the point marked AP, and protruding at least 10 ft. out of the spoil of the fall. Now, if Martin was sent to get rails there, do you think it would be more likely that he would have gone through this bord and then lit the gas and been driven away ; or do you think he had just come in when the gas met him ? Is the route by the door the shortest way ?—Yes. 37. The force of the explosion, think, came'down No. 0 into No. 5, and went up and down the haulage-road ?—Yes, part of the force of the explosion. 38. When these men came down the shaft at the end of the haulage-road, where would they go to get the word that all was right and that they were to go to work ? —They would be told to go down to No. 5, and be told there where they were to go. 39. Is it not likely they would be at No. 6 ? —Perhaps Darby, or Smith, or Growans would tell them to go to the cabin. 40. You do not know what was the usual thing ?—I do not know. 41. Where is the nearest intake airway coming down that haulage-road ? —You have an intake airway all the way down. 42. Then if they were at No. 5, this would be the quickest way in : down the travelling-road at No. 5 section, past the jig, and then up through this kind of labyrinth through the door into No. 6 ?— Yes. 43. Then the reason why you would expect them to go through that door is that it was the quickest way % —Yes. 44. Is it the shorter way if they start from the shaft-bottom ?—Yes, I should think so. 45. Is not that a very important question ? —lt can be easily answered upon reference to the plan [plan referred to]. 46. Do you suggest that if these men started from Ralph's shaft to go to No. 6 it would be shorter for them to go down No. 5 and thence into No. 6, or take the other road round ? Which is the shorter ? —[After taking measurements from the plan.] The way up the haulage-road is about 60 chains, and the other way about 70 chains. There is no doubt that the haulage-road is the quicker way. 47. The Chairman.] Which is the easier ? —The main haulage-road is both the easier and the quicker. 48. Mr. Wilford.] Of course you have no knowledge as to whether Martin was sent down the haulageroad or round the other way ?—No. 49. One witness this morning, a horse-driver, who was in the party at No. 6 on the morning of the explosion, told us that on the previous pay-Saturday morning he was sent to the same place practically for the purpose of lifting rails with other men. He said that on the previous occasion he went to that place by the deputy's instructions by way of the winch level ? —Yes. 50. He would have to take a horse ?—I do not see how he could take a horse there at all to No. 6, because that is up a jig. 51. Could he get to the end of No. 6 ? —Not with a horse. 52. There is no way that he could get close to No. 6 with a horse ?—Not that I am aware of. 53. Did you go with Mr. Bennie round portion of No. 5 district recently ? —Yes. 54. Did you find gas in several places ?—I did. 55. Did you find it in several places, from the floor as high as you could reach ? —Yes. 56. And if there is gas to as high as you can reach, is it fair to assume that it extends to the roof ? ■ —Quite fair. 57. Then, if you can find gas as high as your extended arm will reach above your head —or as high as you can distinguish it with a lamp —it is certain it extends to the roof ? —Practically certain. 58. The last place where it is is, of course, on the ground ? —Yes, generally. 59. Is not that on account of the lightness of gas as compared with air ?—Yes. That is the last place [on the floor] you would expect to get CH 4 . 60. And if you got it on the ground it must be also in the roof ? —Yes. 61. Did you take any samples of that gas ?—I did not take any myself, but I was sitting beside Mr. Reed when he took some. 62. What were they taken in ?—Small sampling-bottles. 63. And samples of coaldust ?—Mr. Reed took them, and Mr. Bennie gathered them up. 64. And samples of brattice ?—Yes. 65. Did you on that trip see any ladder by which a man who desired to inspect for gas could reach the roof of a bord which was above his reach ? —On that trip, no. 66. As a matter of fact, in the whole distance you travelled did you not see only one ladder, which was broken ? —That time, yes. 67. When was that ?—I believe that was the Friday after the explosion, but I would not be sure of the day. 68. Did you make any tests yourself that day ? —What do you mean by " tests " ? 69. Did you test any other bords for gas ?—When I was by myself or in company with Mr. Reed, it was I who generally did the testing for gas. 70. Can you make any calculation from the tests you made then as to the quantity that was present in a given area ? —No, because I did not have any measurements of the bords. You would require that.
85
C—l 4.
W. WOOD.]
71. Taking the area you were in, would the amount of accumulation run to hundreds of cubic feet, or thousands, where you were then ? —I could soon give it to you by measuring the bords. 72. Would it be a couple of hundred thousand cubic feet ?—lt would be less than 200,000 ft. 73. Much less ?—I make it, roughly, 100,000 cubic feet. 74. How many days after the explosion ? There was still 100,000 cubic feet of gas in the air on the Friday after the explosion ? —Yes. 75. Will you put this Commission in possession of the locality where this huge accumulation of gas was]? —Yes. 76. it in the area defined as Nos. 4, 5, and 6 bords ? — not in that area'at all. 77. About where was it ?—ln No. 5 section. 78. How close to No. 5 section was the area in which you estimated 100,000 cubic feet of gas might be accumulated ? —[Messrs. Brown and Dowgray are aware of the position of the area referred to, and will inform the Chairman.] 79. Did you penetrate far into these bords which you have pointed out to me as containing the gas ? —We went up a bit, and Mr. Reed took his samples. 80. Did you go into them all ? —No, only some of them. 81. When you got your test were you quite satisfied that.the place was.full of gas ? —Yes. 82. 1 suppose you got rid of the gas ? —Yes. 83. What trundled it out ? —The ventilation took it out. 84. How long after the explosion was it before it was clear of gas ? —Eleven days. 85. Was it absolutely clear of gas ? —Yes, I could not get a cap. 86. Eight up to the top of the bords ? But you cannot Jget tojiie top of some of them ? —No, not tojthe top. 87. You have not tested the bord thoroughly until you test to the top of it '! —No. 88. You cannot say afterwards that there was no gas there ? —lf I did not detect it 1 would report the place clear. 89. You have no evidence that there was no gas right up to the roof ?—No. 90. Mr. Napier.] When you speak of gas being present to the extent of 100,000 cubic feet, do you mean gas-mixture ? —Yes, certainly. 91. Not pure gas ?—No ; if it were pure gas it would not explode. 92. What would you estimate the percentage of gas to be in that mixture ? —I could not properly estimate that. The report on the sample was read out at the inquest. Dr. Maclaurin said there was about 9-7 per cent. 93. You referred, at all events, to the mixture that you found ?—Yes. 94. With regard to the route which Martin must have followed, would he not travel the road with fresh air ? —Yes. Moreover, it is quicker and easier walking. 95. And there is more fresh air ? —Yes, than round about by the little dip. 96. Mr. Dowgray.] If those men were sent to lift rails at the particular part of the little dip, and to convey them to No. 5 section, it would be necessary for them to go through that door ? —Yes. 97. That would be the course they would have to take ?—Yes, so far as I know. 98. If you were sent to lift rails in the little dip and to convey them to No. 5 section, which way would you go ? —The way the deputy sent me. 99. Does the deputy always send them ? —Yes, in the Extended Mine, where I am. 100. You are talking about the Extended ?—1 do not know what their rule was in Ralph's. 101. Regarding that place where they were sent to lift rails, it was the working-place for that working-day ? —lf they were sent there to lift rails, yes. 102. And the road leading to that place would be the travelling-road to it ? —Yes, that is correct. 103. Mr. Brown.] Which way were the bricks blown out of that stopping ? —They were blown down the bord [explained by diagram]. 104. Then if Martin came through that door and got down to where that first fall is—the new fall —or somewhere about there, which way would his body go —the same way as the bricks, or the other way ? —That all depends. Ido not think he got as far as that new fall when he ignited the gas. 105. You presume he ignited it at that stenton ? —Yes. I think there has been a lot more falls since the explosion. 106. Mr. Dowgray]. You stated that in your opinion Martin had entered that door ; the air rushing through the door drew the gas out and he ignited it ?—Yes. 107. And, according to the position of his body, he got a considerable distance down there ?—Yes. 108. I take it that the line of greatest force is through by No. 5 ? —Yes, so far as we can judge. 109. Is it not reasonable to assume that he had come through the door and met the gas ?—But I say he was at the cut-through when he met the gas. It was a minor explosion first. 110. Would a minor explosion blow out that stopping ?—That is my opinion. 111. Mr. Brown.] If there had been a very large accumulation of gas in that bord, would there be any signs of burning on the rib sides ? —lf there had been a large accumulation of gas in that bord I do not think we would ever have seen Martin. Charles Allen, Labourer (Ex-miner), sworn and examined. (No. 11.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] What are you, Mr. Allen ?—At the present time I am a labourer, but my occupation has been that of a miner up to two years ago. 2. How long were you mining ?—Forty years. 3. Do you know the Taupiri Mine fairly well ? —Yes. 4. How long were you working in the Taupiri Mine ?—Fourteen years —in and about the mine. 5. Which mine ? —The whole three —Kimihia, the Extended, and Ralph's. I have been in Ralph's for seven years.
C—l 4.
86
C. ALLEN.
6. When were you last working in Ralph's Mine ? —I was one of the men discharged in the first trouble here. I was on the executive of the union, about two years ago. 7. You have not been in the mine since then ?—No. 8. You are not allowed in ? —No. 9. Do you know of any instances in Ralph's Mine of gas being found, after a long drill has been used in drilling ? —Yes, sir. 10. How long ago ? —The first case was, I think, when 1 had been in Ralph's Mine not more than a month. 11. How long ago ? —About nine years. 12.' Then, later on—on how many occasions ?—On three occasions I have known gas to be lit twice in one place and once in another. 13. You are quite clear that the gas came in after the bore ?—The first time it was just before knocking-ofi time. I put in a 4 ft. 6 in. hole the full length of a drill. Not having sufficient powder for a charge 1 went out, and when I came back there was a slight explosion of gas from the hole. 14. You lit it with a lamp ?—Yes. In the same place later on we put a hole up in the roof to test for cover, and a good deal of gas exuded. 15. Do you remember three years ago something of that nature occurring when Mr. Fulton was there ?— Yes. 16. Where was that ?—ln the little dip section. 17. Will you explain it ?—We were working in a heading. It was the time that the men started at 7-30 a.m. and did not have crib till 12. Just as we were coming back Skellorn walked up to the place and immediately there was quite a flash of gas. It was exuding from the cutting. 18. Skellern was then the deputy ? —No, he was the shot-firer. 19. Who was the deputy ?—Darby. 20. Was he there then ?—No, only Skellern. 21. Those three instances you know of and remember quite distinctly ?—Yes. 22. Do you know any instances of burns other than Kelly's case ?—No. 23. Mr. Tunics.] Where did that ignition take place —the one you referred to as having occurred just before knocking-ofi time ? —ln the little dip section. 24. Were they all in the little dip section ? —Yes. 25. You referred to one case which happened about three years ago —can you fix the date ? — No, it was three or three and a half years ago. 26. Who was in charge of the mine at that time ? —Mr. Wright. 27. It was before Mr. Fletcher's time ?—Yes. 28. Can you show on the plan of the little dip section where the first of these oases occurred ?— I know where it was. 29. Can you describe the place —perhaps Mr. Fletcher can then fix it on the plan ? —ln the first place it was on the horse-road, about the short road going into the workings from the first turn on the right—the third or fourth bord on the right-hand side. 30. How far would the bord be in ? —We had just broken it away. We had just got the 14 ft. We would be in about 2 or 3 yards, counting from the 6 ft. narrow. 31. Was that where it happened twice ?—Yes. 32. Whereabouts was the other one ? —ln the winch dip on the righ-hand side of the heading. 1 do not know what you call the heading. 33. What did you do about these cases ? —ln the first instance, Mr. Hall was deputy and 1 reported both cases to him. In the second case, I did not consider it necessary to do so, because the official shotfirer was there. 34. Was any damage done ? —I do not know that there was. 35. Was any damage done on any of the occasions ?—No. 36. Anybody burned ?—I do not know whether Skellern was. He might have got a little singed. 37. You do not know whether anybody was burned —Skellern did not complain ? —lt is such a long time ago I cannot say. 38. You were not burned ? —No. 39. Were any of you burned ?—No.
William George Weight, Police Constable, sworn and examined. (No. 12.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] You are a jjolice constable stationed at Huntly ?—Yes. 2. You were a member of the rescue party which first went into the mine after the explosion ?-?- That is so. 3. The first or second man ? —Yes, Mr. Jolly and myself were the first to go down. v 4. I want to question you as to the positions in which some of the bodies were found. While working in the rescue party you helped to bring out some of them ?—Yes, but as it was the first time I had ever been down this mine, and it was practically pitch dark, it would be hard for me to say where some of the bodies exactly were discovered. 5. In regard to Martin and Hopper, you know where Martin's body was found [No. 43] ?—Yes. 6. Have you ever been down there ? —Only to get the body. 7. I want you to tell the Commission what clothing was on Martin's body when he was found ?— Just his boots and his socks to the top of his boots. 8. Cut off, as it were, along the top of the boot-leather ?—Yes, he had not a stitch of clothing on him except the portion of his socks inside his boots and his boots. 9. Did you also see his coat ? —No. 10. You do not know the position where his coat was found ? —No. 11. Did you find a boot near Martin's ? —Well, a few yards from him.
W. G. WRIGHT.]
87
C—l -
12. About how far from Martin [Plann AA explained to witness] ? —I know that we counted six bords up and we went up the sixth. We went down the little dip way. 13. You know where the door was blown out ?—I have an idea, but I did not see it. 14. If the point marked 43 is where Martin's body was found, could you in any way define where the other boot was ?—The only thing I know was that when we came up the bord I picked up a boot and said, " I have found one of his boots." Mr. Wood, the mine-manager, replied, " That is not his boot, he is up farther." So I dropped it. 15. You found that he was up farther, and that Mr. Wood was right ? Yes, I took the boots oft Martin's body. 16. Did you help to bring Hopper out ? —I did not know which was he. I helped to bring a good number out, and may have done so. 17. You are quite certain, however, that the boot you found was picked up before you reached Martin's body ? —Yes, I am certain. 18. Did you bring the body out the way you went ? —Yes, we rolled it in a canvas and went back the same way as we came. We brought it right back to the shaft. 19. Did you go in through that door afterwards [door indicated on plan] ? —No. 20. Mr. Tunks.] The boot which you found was embedded ? —I think so, but Ido not know for certain. I just picked it up and dropped it again. 21. You do not know anything about it—whether it was a right-foot boot or a left ?—No. 22. The Chairman.] Has it been ascertained since to whom the boot belonged ? —I do not know. 23. Mr. Dowgray.] Did you see Martin's body after it was brought to the surface, ? Was it recognizable ? —No, nobody could recognize it as Martin. 24. How did you recognize it as Martin ?—Mr. Malloy, with whom he lived, recognized his boots as those of Martin. Martin had also long hair, and that was also recognized. 25. Is there not a similarity in miners' boots ? —Possibly, but Mr. Malloy recognized them at once. Martin also had five false teeth, and his sister identified them. The only trouble in connection with identification was as between Smith and Baker. Smith was buried for Baker, but when Baker's body was recovered and identified the mistake was rectified. John James Clout, Head Banksman, sworn and examined. (No. 13.) Witness read evidence given by him at Coroner's inquest, as follows : — " John James Clout, sworn, saith :lam a tip banksman at Ralph's Mine. I was on duty on the morning of the accident. The deputies go down in the first cage. I saw Mr. Gowans go down that morning. Smith and Darby would go down in the first two cages. I got the signal from below from the onsetter ' all clear,' and I let the others down. I lowered four cages that morning and then went away to do some other work. Shortly after I left the pit-head I heard a roar and saw flames come up the shaft. The deputies were let down at 7 a.m., and the miners went down straight after. " No questions." 1. Mr. Wilford.] You got your signal from below from the onsetter " All clear " ?—Yes, when he went down. 2. I want you to say when the men went down ? —As 7 o'clock. 3. Are you positive ? —Yes, when the whistle blew. 4. But the whistles do not blow together ? —That is the different mines. 5. Are they supposed to have the same time ?—They keep their own time. 6. Can you tell whether the deputies had gone down before ? —They went down in the first two cages —of course that was before my time—the examining deputies. 7. You do not know what time they went down ? —No. 8. Who does ? —The driver who was on shift would know. 9. Who was he ?—Starr, I think. 10. Would he have any record of the time when the examining deputies went down ? —I could not say. 1.1. What is the usual practice —I know only what the Act says ? —I do not know ;I am never there. 12. Do you know whether, on Saturday morning, things are done a little more laxly than on regular mornings ? —No, it should not be so. 13. It should not be so, but is it ? —I do not know. Ido not think so. 14. Who were the deputies who went down ?—Smith and Darby. 15. How many cages did you lower that morning I—Four.1 —Four. 16. Have you any check to show that ? —Yes, we keep the tally. We marked every cage down, but the tally was blown away. 17. And it is from memory that you say you lowered four cages ? —Yes. 18. How far had you gone from the pit-head when you heard the roar ? —I was by the tippler. 19. What was the distance ? —About twenty or thirty yards. I was working there. 20. Is it part of your duty as head banksman to take delivery of whatever comes up from down below ? —No, that is the brakesman's duty. 21. If some hot stuff comes up from down below, would it pass under your eyes ?—No, unless I was there. 22. Have you seen hot stuff coming up from down below ?—Only on one occasion. 23. Did you say that only on one occasion you have seen hot stuff coming up from down below ? —Yes, to my knowledge. 24. Were you ever working down the mine at any time ? —Yes, at several times I have been on down the mine. 25. Were you ever down there with Molesworth ? —No.
C—l 4.
88
[j. J. CLOUT.
26. Did you ever at the top of the mine have any hot stuff handed to you by Molesworth ? —Yes. 27. He told us that he once handed to you a piece of stuff, and it was so hot that you had to drop it ?— Yes, he drew my attention to it when it was coming over the picking-belt. 28. And is that the only time ?—Yes. 29. Now, has it not been discussed among the men both below arid above that there was a good deal of gas escaping there in the mine ? —Not to my knowledge. 30. Have you never heard of men talking about " another escape of gas " ? —No. 31. Never at all ?— No. 32. Even when a man had found 33,000 cubic feet of gas, you have never heard it discussed as a gaseous mine ? —No. If I were in the braceman's place I might. 33. Have you ever heard Mr. Dixon say anything of it —on the 26th July, for instance ?—No, nothing. 34. Do you know nothing about an occurrence on the 26th or 27th July ? —I do not. Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines, sworn and examined. (No. 14.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] What are you, Mr. Reed ? —I am Inspecting Engineer of Mines and Consulting Engineer of the State Collieries of New Zealand. 2. What qualifications have you ?—I have many qualifications. 3. Will you give me your qualifications : we may take them shortly as we did those of Professor Dixon I —l hold the following diplomas : British First-class Colliery Manager's Certificate, First in First Class, at the Government Examination, N. District, England, 1884 ; New Zealand First-class Colliery Manager's Certificate, 1887 ; Diploma on Mine-gases and Ventilation, Durham University, J 884; Licensed Surveyor's Diploma, New Zealand, Western Australia, and Tasmania; Examiner on Mine-gases and Ventilation during past eight years at the Government and Schools of Mines Examinations ; member of the Royal Commission on Mines, 1911 ; formerly Mining Engineer and Inspector of Collieries to the Government of Western Australia. I have had thirty-four years' practical experience at the mines of England and the colonies. lam also a member of the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy (London). 4. Mr. Reed, how long have you known Taupiri ? -The collieries for about eight years. 5. Have you ever inspected the Taupiri collieries ? —Several times. 6. Under the Coal-mines Act have you any responsibility in regard to the inspection of mines ?— Not as Inspecting Engineer of Mines. 7. Is New Zealand divided into districts under the various Inspectors ? —Yes. When I first joined the Department there was no section of the Act which authorized me to enter a mine, and, at my own request, I was gazetted as Inspector of Mines without a district, because my right of entry into the Kaitangata Mine was questioned by the late Mr. R. Lee. I was gazetted an Inspector of Mines to enable me to enter a-ny mine which I wished to examine, but I have no district under section 23 of the Coal-mines Act. 8. The District Inspector here is Mr. Bennie ?—Mr. Boyd Bennie. 9. Mr. Reed, when did you first become aware of there being any danger in the Taupiri Mine ?— I was unaware of any danger until last Christmas. 10. Prior to that you had had no facts brought to your notice which would lead you to form a conclusion that the mine was dangerous ? No. I knew of no defects in them. I refer to both the Taupiri Company's mines. 11. How did you become aware of the condition of the mine ? —I was demonstrating on firedamp at the Mines Department Court at the Auckland Exhibition. 12. You were in charge of that? —Yes. I put up a firedamp observatory and a mine-rescue, apparatus for the Mines Department. I used to grant certificates to all-comers who would qualify to detect firedamp with a miner's safety-lamp. While I was demonstrating there I found a number of candidates coming from the Taupiri collieries to get their tickets. I was surprised, and asked, " Why do you come here; you have no gas in your mines," and they replied " Haven't we." 1.3. Your suspicions were aroused ?—Yes, by the number of men that were coming from the Taupiri mines. 14. Miners to qualify at testing for firedamp ?—Yes. 15. This was about Christmas time, I understand ?—About December they started to come. 16. Then, having your suspicions aroused, did you communicate with the District Inspector ?— I did more than that. I want to tell you how I got to know that there was gas in the mines here. I said no more, but another official came along and got into conversation with me and told me there had been burnings in the mines as the result of gas-ignitions. As soon, however, as he discovered I was drawing him he asked me to treat the information in strict confidence. 17. From information you received you considered it was worth looking into ?—I did, and I wrote to Inspector Bennie a private letter, as I have no authority to write officially. 18. You have no power officially to write to Mr. Bennie ? —No, as he stated. I have no power over Inspectors of Mines ; but the new Act will possibly give me power, because it makes the Inspecting Engineer also Chief Inspector of Mines. 19. You wrote Mr. Bennie then ?—Yes, a private letter. 20. In consequence of what you knew you wrote Mr. Bennie ? —Yes. 21. And as a consequence of your letter, did Mr. Bennie write to anybody ? —Mr. Bennie did eventually write to somebody, but I asked him to see if he could make inquiries himself by going to the union, but the men would say nothing. Mr. Bennie then came to the Exhibition, and said that the men would not divulge anything. I told him then to write to Mr. Fletcher for a statement of all the instances of burning, and that we would accept it as being written without prejudice. Mr. Fletcher then wrote Mr. Bennie a letter referring to three cases of burnings by gas.
F. EEED.]
89
C—14.
22. This is Mr. Fletcher's letter dated 14th January, 1914 : " To the Inspector of Mines, Thames.— " I beg to acknowledge your letter of 8th instant regarding accidents by powder, explosions, and the ignition of firedamp. In the Extended Mine there were two cases of burning by explosions of firedamp during the past two years, but not serious. The first occurred to David Conn, a shift man. There had been a fall of roof at the face of the west heading, and he with other men had been sent to repair" same. During the course of repairs slabbing had to be done, and while putting the slabs into position overhead he got his naked light which was on his head too -far into the fall; some gas which had apparently collected in a pocket was ignited and he received burns to both arms : date of occurrence, 16/2/12. This place had been inspected and reported ' all clear ' just previous to the shift commencing. The next occurred to William Willcox, who was a roadman at that time. It appears that on the previous afternoon this man had commenced to lay a turn into a cross-heading, which was driven in a distance of 15 yards and brattice carried right to the face. He did not complete the laying of the turn, but went in a little earlier next morning, but not before the examining deputy had inspected the place. At the point where he was laying the turn, 15 yards back from the face, an ignition of firedamp took place. Mr. Wood, the certificated manager, in company with Deputy Duncan and Assistant Deputy Wood, immediately inspected the place after the accident, and found no trace of any gas. It may have collected in a roof-cavity through a disarrangement of the brattice, but Mr. Wood is of the opinion that the acetylene-lamp he was carrying at the time on his head exploded. I might add that these explosions occurred during the time the small fan was doing duty, and there is no doubt—although plenty as regards quantity to comply with the Act —there was not sufficient volume to keep down small accumulations during the time the mine was not working ; but since the new fan £as been erected these troubles are things of the past: date of occurrence, 26/3/12. Regarding the burning of Alexander Reid by an explosion of blasting-powder on the 14th December, 1912, this accident was reported to you under date 16th December, 1912. In Ralph's Mine a roadman named Arthur Ruston went into an old bord in Dooley's dip to lift some rails near the face, and he ignited a small accumulation of gas near the face with his naked light. He escaped without injury." There are only two names in that letter of men burnt —Conn and Willcox ? —Yes, that is so. I was told of another man, but his name I cannot remember. 23. That letter of the 14th January was the first intimation that you or the Department received from the management ?—It was the first information on the matter which reached any officer of the Department from the manager. The claims on the Coal-miners' Relief Fund in respect of such injuries are certified to by the Inspector, and go forward to the clerks in the office to pay the money. The burns to Willcox are said to be on the face, due to gas, but it might have been gas on the surface for all the Department knows from the doctor's certificate. These are vouchers for the payment out of the fund, and they do not come to me at all. [Coal-miners' Relief Fund files.] They are not reported to the Department. 24. When you got the information contained in the letter of the 14th January about burns by gas-explosion, did you report it ? —I did at once to the Under-Secretary for Mines. 25. Show me your report ? Mr. Macassey : I understand that the Commission has asked for thefile/and , ! put it in accordingly. [File, 14/1194.1 26. Mr. Wilford.] Will you please turn up the letters yourself and hand them to me. I want first your report which you wrote after receiving the information contained in that letter on the 14th January ?—I wrote six letters, but they are not all here. 27. You wrote six letters, all in connection with the Taupiri Mine ?—I wrote six letters to the Under-Secretary before the explosion regarding the danger of such. 28. Are your letters not there on the file ?—No, but I have copies of them. The first letter was at the end of January. Some important letters are missing. 29. Then, tell me the dates of any letters that are not there ?—I will tell you the dates and the contents. Mr. Macassey : Is there another file, because, if so, we will wire for it ? 30. Mr. You say that you saw those letters on the file ?—Yes, but files are sometimes split up. The last number I saw on the file was 14/11/94. I will refer to my letters, and tell you what are the dates of them. 31. You have said that since January of this year you have written six letters on the subject of the explosion—after the explosion ?—Six or seven before the explosion, and two after. The first letter was about the end of January, in which I sent on Mr. Fletcher's letter of the 14th January. Mr. Bennie sent it to me, and I sent it on to the Under-Secretary with my remarks. I will tell you what I said in my letter. I put a covering memo, on it before sending it. The date of my memo, is 28th January, 1914. 32. And the contents ?—It was to the effect that I regretted to report that there had been some ignitions or explosions in the mines at Huntly which had been concealed by the management, but Mr. Fletcher had now reported them without prejudice to himself. 33. I will read this memorandum of yours. The date is 28th January, 1914, and it is headed " Unreported Explosions of Firedamp at Taupiri Coal-mines." It is addressed to the Under-Secretary for Mines, and runs as follows : " I regret to report to you a breach of the law by the Taupiri Coalmines (Limited) —viz., a miner, William Willcox, was seriously burned by an explosion of firedamp, which accident was not reported to the Minister and Inspector, as required by section 62 of the Coalmines Act. . The first intimation I received of this was on or about the 2nd January, and from a source I must regard as confidential. Upon the same day I referred the matter to Inspector Bennie, who informed me that no gas-explosions at the Taupiri mines had been reported to him. I thereupon asked him to investigate and report, and, if he could not otherwise obtain information, to" request Mr. James Fletcher, the certificated mine-manager, to report to him now, without prejudice to himself. This report I have received and attach hereto. You' will observe that four gas-explosions are admitted. For burns received as the result of an explosion William Willcox obtained relief from the Coalminers' Relief Fund for three weeks. All explosions in coal-mines are most serious, as the conditions
12—C. 14.
C—l 4.
90
[p. REED.
for a colliery disaster are all present. Section 62 provides for a report of any accident attended with serious injury to any person. Under the conditions by which I became aware of the above facts, I cannot recommend further action being taken, although the payment to the sufferer, William Willcox, on account of his injuries, is evidence of an independent nature. In view of any subsequent explosions, perhaps you may consider it advisable to place on record our knowledge of these past events.—Prank 'Reed, Inspecting Engineer, Mines Department." That is your letter of the 28th January ? —Yes. 34. Did you receive any reply from the Under-Secretary to that ?—No. 34a. What was your next communication, Mr. Reed ?—At the beginning of the present session of Parliament Mr. Blow sent me a proof of a Bill to amend the Coal-mines Act for my revision and suggestion. After I had revised it I reported to him. 35. Is this your letter dated 27th June, 1914, headed " Firedamp and Fine Coaldust reported at Taupiri Coal-mines " : " The Under-Secretary of Mines. —The Inspector for Mines, Mr. Bennie, in his monthly report hereunder for May reports that firedamp and fine coaldust exist at the Taupiri coalmines. These are the conditions which occasion colliery disasters. Ignitions of gas causing men to be burned have been reported from these mines lately. The Royal Commission on Mines, 1911, recommended amendments and additions to our Coal-mines Act to provide for better ventilation, laying coal-dust safety explosives, safety-lamp regulations, &c. Our Act is generally obsolete, being based on a British Act long since repealed. If a disaster occurs as the result of an inadequate law the Inspection Branch of the Department cannot be held responsible. The Brunner and Kaitangata disasters cost a hundred lives. It is the unexpected that happens. — Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer, Mines Department" ?—Yes, that is my letter. 36. What was your next communication ?—I wrote to the Under-Secretary asking him to have preference given to the Coal-mines Bill if only one Bill was to be passed. The Mining and Coal-mines Bills had both been prepared. I asked him to give preference to the Coal-mines Amendment Bill if only one Bill was to be passed, as I feared a holocaust in these mines. " 37. You stated that ?—I did. 38. Have you a copy of that letter ?—Not the one in which I used the word " holocaust," although I have used it several times in connection with this mine. 39. This is your letter, dated 29th July, 1914. It is headed " Explosions of Gas at the Taupiri Collieries ": " The Under-Secretary for Mines.—l would be obliged if you would ask Inspector Bennie why in view of the four gas-explosions by which persons were burnt at the Taupiri Company's collieries at Huntly, which he reported to the Inspecting Engineer in January, he did not then insist, in accordance with Special Rule 14 under the Coal-mines Act, ' that the manager shall direct the underviewer to see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended.' The ignition of firedamp recorded hereunder, by which a collier (Kelly) was burned was caused by a naked light carried by Kelly in Ralph's Taupiri Mine; it might have been a holocaust. The seriousness of these frequent explosions at Huntly cannot be lightly passed over. The responsibility of our Department is enormous. Should another Kaitangata or Brunner disaster occur the public would justly condemn us. Inspector Bennie and Mr. Fletcher, mine-manager, should be made to realize the responsibility of the situation. Only approved safety-lamps and permitted flameless explosives should be allowed at 'the Taupiri coal-mines, such mines being adjacent underground. The recommendations of the Royal Commission on Mines, 1911, if given effect to in the Coal-mines Bill, will immensely strengthen the hands of the Mines Inspection staff to secure conditions of greater safety. The existing Act is obsolete.—Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer, Mines Department." That letter was written by you, Mr. Reed, on the 29th July ?—Yes, on the 29th July. 40. Later on, were you still uneasy ?—Yes, I was very anxious. 41. When did you next write on the subject ?—I think the next letter is dated the 13th August, and then another a little later. 42. Then, from the file it appears that, in accordance with your request, Mr. Reed, the UnderSecretary wrote to the Inspector of Mines asking for a report. Mr. Blow's letter is dated the 4th August, 1914, and is as follows : " Gas-explosions at the Taupiri Collieries.—The Inspector of Mines, Thames.— With regard to the ignition of firedamp on the 9th July at Ralph's Mine, by which William. Kelly was burned, as reported by you on the 24th July, will you please inform me, at your earliest convenience, whether, considering that other accidents of a similar description have recently occurred at the Taupiri collieries, locked safety-lamps should not in future be used and naked lights excluded at Ralph's Mine, in accordance with Special Rule 14. Also please inform me if you recommend a prosecution of the manager for the aforesaid negligence, by which a disastrous explosion might have been caused. The sinking of a new air-shaft, the proposed installation of a new fan, and the air-measurements, as reported by you, have no bearing upon the past ignitions of gas and burning of several miners.—H. J. H. Blow, Under-Secretary " ? —Yes, that is correct. 43. Then, in reply to that letter, the Inspector of Mines reported as follows, on the 7th August, 1.914, to the Under-Secretary : " In reply to your memo, of the 4th instant, I beg to state that after careful consideration I am of the opinion that to prosecute Mr. Fletcher, the mine-manager, for a breach of Special Rule 14 in the case of William Kelly, burnt by an ignition of gas in the company's mine on the 9th July last, I may fail to get a conviction, but the moral effect of such a prosecution will be to produce more effective supervision, the value of which we cannot foresee. In view of the alleged previous burnings by gas in the mines, apart from that of the 4th instant, which may be necessary to prosecute, I, as Inspector of Mines, received no help from the Miners' Union or their check inspectors, who are, as at present constituted, the creation of the mining company's directors. I have had no complaints from the union officials or any one of its members, either written or verbal, for over twelve months past. I may say that there is very little carburetted-hydrogen gas found in the mine, but for some time past small quantities have been found and reported by the examining officers of the company. ,In view of that I have repeatedly requested that the roads in the mine where dry coaldust has accumulated should be adequately watered, and all shots fired in the mine to be fired by the fireman and deputy as required by Special Rule 25 {d). The manager has not complied as fully as I would like. The foot-tracks of the travelling-roads only have been watered, and while the manager has informed me in writing that shots are being fired by officials, I am not quite sure that this is so. I cannot
91
a—l 4
E. REED
recommend that safety-lamps only be used in these mines for two reasons—(l.) Very little gas is found in the miners' working-places, it has practically always been found in falls of the roof of the old workings, and two officials are specially appointed to examine the old workings —during the week daily inspections are made and a full round of the work is made during the week. (2.) The working-places are 10 ft. to 18 ft. high. The light from a safety-lamp is very poor, and if the. mine is to be worked as at present by present methods, there will be a great increase in the number of accidents to miners, and serious accidents, if not fatalities, as the result of defective lighting. The safety-lamps will be damaged, and the end in view defeated. To prosecute for a breach of Special Rule 14 in Kelly's case will at least have the effect of producing stricter supervision. Therefore I now ask permission to summons Mr. Fletcher under Special Rule 14 of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and also permission to employ a solicitor. —B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines " ? —Yes, and then that report was sent to me. 44. Yes, the Under-Secretary minuted it on to you as follows: " The Inspecting Engineer,—l should be glad to have your views upon this matter, particularly upon the proposal to prosecute contained in the last paragraph.—H. J. H. 8., 11/8/14" ?—Yes. 45. In response to that you wrote the following minute to the Under-Secretary : " The Undersecretary for Mines.—lgnitions of gas by which men have been burnt have occurred frequently of late at the Taupiri collieries. A prosecution would do good even if it failed (owing to our obsolete and weak Coal-mines Act), for it would show the public that the Mines Department were alive to the danger, and it would cause the management of the company to give greater attention to the safety of the mine in future. Should an explosion occur, the fact that we had prosecuted would be appreciated by the public. I recommend that Inspector Bennie consults a reliable solicitor, and if we are considered by him to have a fair chance to secure a conviction, proceedings should be taken, and I will go north to assist the Inspector.—Frank Reed, 11/8/14" ?—Yes. 46. Then there is a memo as follows : " Hon. Minister of Mines.—Please approve action being taken in accordance with the Inspecting Engineer's recommendations.—H. J. H. Blow, 15/8/14." And then a minute : " Approved—W. F., 15/8/14." That is the Minister of Mines ; you know that ?— Yes. 47. Now, what was your next communication on this matter ?—Two days after writing that last minute I wrote again on the 13th. The letter is not on the file, however; but I have a draft copy of my letter here. My original letter is probably on the file containing Mr. Bennies monthly reports. 48. Your letter of 13th August, 1914, is as follows : " Dangerous Conditions at the Taupiri, Waipa, and Hikurangi Collieries.—The Under-Secretary for Mines.—ln your report for July by Inspector Bennie hereunder you will see reference to seriously bad conditions at Taupiri Mine, firedamp being plentiful and men having been burnt thereby. At Waipa Mine the Manager ignores the law re explosives and is constructing his drives too wide for safety. At Hikurangi Mine an underground fire is being produced by dangerous mining methods. I recommend the perusal of the Inspector's report by the Minister and yourself. With the present obsolete Coal-mines Act the Inspector's hands are tied. The importance of passing the Coal-mines Bill must be now evident.—Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer, Mines Department" ?—Yes. 49. That was a month before the explosion ?—The Under-Secretary wrote and asked me to explain where the Coal-mines Act was obsolete and ineffective to deal with the defects reported by Inspector Bennie. I prepared for him a tabulated report, a copy of which you have in your hand. 50. You received a request from Mr. Blow to give particulars regarding the dangerous practices existing in the Auckland collieries as reported by Inspector Bennie, and also as to a clause in the Coal-mines Bill which would enable those practices to be suppressed. In reply to that request you furnished this statement, dated 15/8/14, signed by you : " The Under-Secretary for Mines.—The following are particulars regarding the dangerous practices existing at the Auckland Collieries, as reported by Inspector Bennie this month ; also the clauses printed in the Coal-mines Bill, which will enable those practices to be suppressed. The urgency of the matter must be evident—Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines, 15/8/14 : —
That is your statement ? —Yes.
„ . „ ... , Dangerous Conditions reported by Name of Colliery. inspector Bennie for July, 1914. Coal-mines Aet. Remedy provided in Coal-mines Bill. Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited) Firedamp prevalent; several miners burnt by ignitions of gas. (Disastrous explosion possible). —P.R. No provision in Act to enable Inspector to order the use of safety-lamps only Clause 7 (h) (iii) that no lamp other than a locked safetylamp shall be allowed or used in any place in a mine in which there is likely to be any quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous. Clause 14 (4) (8) gives Inspector power to have workmen withdrawn. Clause 9 provides for making additional rules to regulate width of bords; also clause 18 (a). Also clause (46b) (/) gives power to workmen's inspector to notify manager of a dangerous part of a mine. Clause 14 (4) (3) gives Inspector power to have workmen withdrawn. Waipa Collieries (Limited) Bords (working - places) are driven 18 ft. wide, being too wide for safety, as falls of roof are liable and have occurred. (The most prolific cause of mining fatalities.) —F. R. No provision in Act for Inspector to regulate width of bords Hikurangi Coal Company (Limited) The manager, who has been convicted for breaches of the Coal-mines Act, is now extracting coal from under the main haulage-drive. The mine is collapsing, and is on fire in one section (the Nightcaps Mine disaster was thus caused).—F.R. No provision in Act for Inspector to prevent workmen entering a dangerous place, and to prevent manager working his mine in a dangerous manner
0.—14
92
F. REED
51. I want to put on record particularly what you said on the 15th August about'the Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited) : " Firedamp prevalent, several miners burnt by ignitions of gas. (Disastrous explosion possible.)—F.R." ? —That is so. 52. And you recommended alterations in the Act ?—I recommended those nearly three years ago. I was asked a question as to whether the new Bill would rectify the defects in the old Act, and that is part of my answer. 53. The suggested remedy is provided in clause 7 (h) (iii) —that noj.lamp other. 4 than a locked safety-lamp shall be allowed or used in any place in a mine in which there is likely to be any quantity of inflammable gas as to render the use of naked lights dangerous ?—Yes, that is in the clause in the Bill. 54. You directed the Under-Secretary's attention to it to show where the remedy was provided ? —Yes, at his request. 55. On the 15th August you said in regard to these mines : " Disastrous explosion possible " ?— I did. 56. What was your next communication ? —I was still very nervous, and so I got some electric safety-lamps and brought them up to Mr. Bennie at the Thames eight days before the explosion, so that I could demonstrate the use of them to him, and show that they*gave a good light for the roof. I went to the Waitangi Mine and experimented with them, showing Mr. Bennie what these lamps could do. Mr. Bennie was rather doubtful that safety-lamps would give enough light for examining the roof, and that is the only point upon which we differed. I took these electric lamps up to him to show that they gave an excellent light, and subsequently asked him to take them to Mr. Fletcher and try and induce him to use similar lamps at Ralph's Colliery. 57. Did you make a special trip to the Thames for this purpose —to take those lamps ? —No, I went up to have a conference with Mr. Burgess and the Inspectors. We went down the deep-level mine there, which is dangerous. Mr. Bennie and I were discussing the dangers of the Thames Mine, and I said, " It is dangerous, but not nearly so dangerous as Ralph's Mine at Huntly, by a very great deal." This was on the Saturday evening disaster. I went to Greymouth. after that, arriving there on Thursday, the 10th. I went to the Port Elizabeth State Colliery, of which lam the Consulting Engineer, and in conversation there with the manager, Mr. I. A. James, I told him of the conditions existing at Ralph's Mine, and that I feared a disaster. 58. How many days was that before the explosion ? —One day before —on Friday. The next day I was in his office drafting letters with Mr. James when his clerk came in and said that Ralph's Colliery had exploded and many men were entombed. I was not surprised, and Mr. James said, " Mr. Reed, you told me yesterday it was likely to happen." 59. Then there is on this file another minute dated the day of the accident (12/9/14). It is from Mr. Blow to the Minister of Mines, and was apparently written by the Under-Secretary on receipt of advice concerning the disaster. The minute says, " This shows that the fears of the Inspecting Engineer were well grounded, and points to the urgent necessity for proceeding with the Coal-mines Amendment Bill " ?—Yes. 60. Then we have it, Mr. Reed, that on six or seven occasions this year you warned the Mines Department of what might happen ?—Yes. Might I also say that I have never made such a prediction or such statements about any other collieries. This is the first occasion on which I have predicted a disaster in this country ; I have never been in the country when one' happened. 61. Were you very uneasy about the matter ?—I was. I think the letters show that. 62. Now, the chief point you make in your letter of the 13th August, which accompanied that tabulated statement, is in regard to safety-lamps ?—Yes. 63. Do you consider, Mr. Reed, that there is any doubt about there being a necessity to use safety-lamps in the Taupiri mines ?—lt is absolutely necessary. 64. Is it arguable ?—Not at all. I may say that I was born and brought up on the Durham Coalfield. I have thoroughly understood the danger of firedamp for thirty years. This is a safetylamp mine always —after the knowledge of the first ignition. 65. In your opinion, if safety-lamps had been used in this mine would this disaster have occurred and all these lives been sacrificed I —No, this disaster has been proved to have been caused by an ignition of gas by a naked light; the other day I measured at one part of the mine 350,000 cubic feet of explosive mixtures —within the last ten days. 66. I want to ask why, occupying the position you hold, you did not help to see that legislation was placed on the statute-book long before this requiring the use of safety-lamps in such mines as Ralph's ? —I was a member of the Royal Commission on Mines in 1911, and that Commission reported strongly in favour of them. It is there in print, and you can see it on pages 12 and 13. I think the Commission has copied the British statute into its recommendation. It gives the Department and the Inspectors a great deal of power as regards the ordering of the use of safety-lamps. Under it the Inspector of Mines would have almost unlimited power. On pages 12 and 13 of the report of the Commission there appear recommendations covering the use of safety-lamps in mines. 67. Are those recommendations almost copied from the English Act ? —Yes, and from the report of the Royal Commission in England. 68. The Commission reported that safety-lamps were required, and also that legislation was necessary ?—I do not think we said anything about legislation ;we recommended that it be placed on the statute-book. 69. This Bill (Coal-mines Amendment Bill, 1912) was introduced in 1912 ; did it ever see the light of day ?—Yes, that is a copy of the Bill introduced by the Minister of Mines during the session following our recommendation —that would be 1912. 70. This Bill contains the recommendations of the Commission ?—lt contains a good many of them.
93
C—l 4
F. REED
71. Does it contain the recommendation of the Commission with regard to safety-lamps ? —Yes, it does —it is practically verbatim from the Commission's report. 72. Which, is the clause in the Bill of 1912 which contains enforcing the use of safety-lamps ? —Clause 4-6 (a), I think it is. On pages 7, 8, and 9 of that Bill of 1912 appear the recommendations of our New Zealand Royal Commission as regards safety-lamps, in statute form. 73. Then, I can : that the Commission having sat and made recommendations among which was one regarding the use of safety-lamps, a_jßill was drawn embodying these recommendations and introduced into Parliament ? —I do not know if it was introduced into Parliament. 74. Do you know whether it went before the Goldfields and Mines Committee ? —I do not know. 75. Your copy says, " As reported from the Goldfields and Mines Committee, House of Representatives, 17th October, 1912 " ?—Yes. 76. That is two years ago, nearly ? —Yes, two years this month. 77. After that Bill was reported from the Committee, did a deputation come to Wellington on the matter ? —Yes. 78. I got it out of Mr. Fletcher in the witness-box that he went down to Wellington as a member of a deputation to oppose the Bill ? —Yes. 79. Did you know of that deputation ?—Yes, sir, I was asked to attend it by the Under-Secretary. 80. And did you attend it ? —Yes. 81. Did the deputation oppose or support that Bill ?—They opposed it clause by clause, but the Minister supported me by contending for the Bill. 82. That is to say that the Minister of Mines, notwithstanding. the opposition of this deputation, stood by you, and said the Bill would go on ?—Yes, he told them straight that it would go on. 83. Were Mr. Dowgray and Mr. Brown on that deputation ? —One of them was. 84. Which one ? —Mr. Brown. 85. Did the Bill go on ? —No, it has not become law yet, but it is going to. 86. Now, be serious. If that Bill had been passed two years ago and safety-lamps in such mines as this had been the law of the country, could this accident have happened ? —I decline to answer that question. 87. But the want of a safety-lamp caused this explosion ?—Certainly, it was a naked light which caused the explosion. 88. Now, let me pass on to another point. I want to ask you this :is there not a large area of old workings in the Taupiri Mine which unless adequately ventilated would accumulate large quantities of gas ?—There is an immense area: I have scaled off on the mine-plan 250 acres in Ralph's Mine and another 250 in the Extended Mine. It is open pillar work and it is unique. They dare not take these pillars down. It means the maintenance of perhaps a hundred miles of bords and stentons, and that requires an enormous amount of ventilation to carry away the gas given off. 89. Do you agree, Mr. Reed, with the statement made by Mr. Bishop yesterday that this mine is unquestionably unique I —lt is ; Mr. Bishop is right. 90. And if that is so, then the rules in regard to ventilation of some mines would not be applicable or may require to be particularly rigorously carried out in a mine like this which has so many difficulties ? —Yes, this mine requires special attention. It is a difficult problem. Perhaps Mr. Bishop and men of his capability could deal with it. It requires very special provision in regard to the distribution of the air: 91. When you were talking about the shaft-supports, did you also agree with Mr. Bishop that the shaft-pillars have been robbed and split ? —Yes, Mr. Morgan and myself were measuring the air round those places last week, and we observed just what you say —the shaft-pillars had been split and robbed. They had got the easily won coal to the loss in stability of the shaft-pillars. 92. Is that dangerous ? —lt is. It is only a question of time when the coal frets away and there will be no factor of safety. Then the ground will collapse. 93. Of course there is an outlet to that mine at West Taupiri ? —Yes. 94. It would be a dreadful calamity if the Taupiri ventilation went wrong and Ralph's shaft went in ? —I do not think it is so dangerous as that. It would not go with a crash, it would give warning. It is not an immediate source of danger, because they have two other outlets to the mine. 95. That is, if the other way is clear ? —I do not regard as a great risk to human life the insecurity of the shaft. 96. Now, you have admitted or told me that there is a large area of open workings which, unless adequately ventilated, would collect large quantities of gas. As men have received burns by ignition in better-ventilated working-parts of the mine, is not that proof that gas was being given off in such workings ? —Yes, I understand that the men have been, burned at places where they were working— that is, where there is an intake current of air. The current of air is concentrated where the men are working. If burns are received where there is a current of air how much more so will the men be burned where there is no air-current —that is, in the old workings ?—That is natural to understand. 97. As men have received burns in better ventilated working-places, it is only reasonable to assume that the danger would be more serious as the workings advanced ? —Yes. 98. Are the bords very high in places ? —Yes, sir. Some of them in Ralph's Mine are higher than I have ever seen elsewhere. 99. That, of course, makes it very difficult to inspect ?—Yes, naturally, very difficult to inspect, for danger from falls and for gas. 100. Should not a practical man like Mr. Fletcher know that mines like this are very difficult to inspect ?—Of course, as a practical man, he must know that the high places are difficult to inspect. 101. If a man knows that these places are so difficult to inspect, should not so much more care be taken to see that they are properly inspected ?—That stands to reason.
94
[f. reed.
C—l 4.
102. That is a natural corollary ? —Yes. 103. Can you tell me whether any flame-producing explosives were used in Taupiri ?—There is nothing else used in New Zealand. There is not an explosive which is on the English permitted list used in any mine in New Zealand at present, but there is going to be, I hope. 104. Is a permitted explosive one which gives no flame, or the merest amount of flame ?—lt is a " permitted " explosive when it has passed the British Home Office test, and will explode without producing flame in an inflammable mixture of gas and air or coaldust. They have a Board at Home which tests these explosives. 105. You say they are all flame-producing explosives which are used in New Zealand mines ? — Yes, because the law does not give us direct authority to insist upon nameless or permitted explosives only being used. 106. Do you consider this mine a dusty mine ? —I do not consider the quantity of the dust dangerous, but I think it is a dangerously dusty mine. 107. You mean that the quality of the dust—the inflammable nature of ite-makes it a dangerous mine ? —Yes, tremendously so. 108. Have you got an analysis of the dust made by Dr. Maclaurin ?—This is the original certificate and report of the Dominion Analyst. I will read that part of the report which shows the inflammability of this dust. I will put the whole report in. [Report put in—Exhibit CO] 109. How many samples were sent to Dr. Maclaurin ? —There was one sample of coal and four of dust, one of brattice and about thirteen of gas, taken by me. These included three samples of dust from the mine, and a large piece of coal which Dr. Maclaurin converted into dust. Professor Dixon did not state it was a piece of my sample which was analysed. He went to the Dominion Analyst and obtained one of my samples, and reported the result without any acknowledgment that it was my sample he had tested. 110. Was the sample which Professor Dixon produced here in a bottle the sample that you had taken from the mine and given to Dr. Maclaurin ? —Yes, that is so. 111. Where did you get those samples which you sent to Dr. Maclaurin for analysis—in what particular place ?—I put the localities down as I collected the samples. Sample No. 13 was dust from bord in No. 5 district near where the W.C. pan was. Sample No. 13 was the one which was taken when Mr. W. Wood and Mr. B. Bennie were present. It was taken from the first bord on the left-hand side going up the jig. Sample No. 14 was taken when Mr. Bennie was present; it was dust from near No. 6 cabin on the haulage roadway. No. 15 was dust taken from the main haulage roadway at No. 4 level. No. 16 was a piece of coal from Ralph's Mine. No. 17 was a piece of charred brattice from near the fl a T-S n ppv No l i£f 112. Now, did the result of those analyses show that the dust was extraordinarily highly inflammable ?—Yes,'very much higher than anything else Dr. Maclaurin had tested here. The flame from Ralph's coal-dust projected the longest distance, and he tested for comparison Westport-Stockton bituminous coal, Aberdare bituminous coal, New South Wales coal, and Welsh anthracite. The Huntly sample gave a flame which ignited cotton-wool at a distance of 20 in. ; Westport-Stockton, 16 in.; Aberdare, 13 in.; while in the Welsh anthracite was only 2| in. The Doctor states m his summary that " These results show that the Huntly coaldust is very inflammable, and that the flame of the ignited dust travels greater distances than ordinary bituminous coals such as Westport-Stockton and Aberdare. Such properties would render the coaldust very affective in carrying on and intensifying an explosion once started." I may say that I tested it before. I tested roughly after the disaster with Mr. Alison, a director of this company. I was astonished at the result. It went off like gunpowder. That was on the 17th. I expected to find it similar to ordinary coaldust, and did not know that it was so lVj-Hri ry\ YY\ f] I) I O 113 I ask you whether the manager has the right at any time to send such samples to the Government Analyst for testing purposes in order to find whether or not his coaldust is inflammable—can Mr Fletcher or Mr Alison, or anybody else send a sample and have a test made ?—Yes, anybody in New Zealand can send a sample of anything to the Dominion Analyst for examination. His Department analyse samples for the public. . ~.-,. ,-, , 114 Therefore there is no difficulty in the way of any manager of any mine getting his coaldust analysed ?—I do not wish to suggest anything against the management m this connection. 115 In regard to the mine-air, part of which was taken in the vicinity of No. 5 ]ig, Ralph s Colliery, was that analysed ?—Yes, I took eleven samples the week after the disaster from different parts of the mine, and they were analysed. Mr. Wood was with me when I collected them. 116. By whom were they analysed ?—By Dr. Maclaurin. They were taken on Friday, the 18th September, six days after the explosion. . . 117. Will you tell me as nearly as possible where you took those samples of mme-air <—1 can show you on the plan, as could also Mr. Wood. 118 Were any samples taken in the region where Martin's body was found ?—No, we had to go down to a lower part of that district by about 30 ft.—the upper part of the No. 5 district was fu 1 of gas. I measured 350,000 cubic feet of explosive gaseous mixture. At my request Mr. Wood took me on the Friday morning to where firedamp had been found by Deputy Mills, who had marked the places in chalk When we found gas in such great quantities it was considered only safe for us to have one oil safety-lamp ; in addition I carried an electric safety-lamp. The highest point m the district was at that door which was blown outwards. That is on an anticline or crown which rises ma 1 directions towards the door [places from which air-samples were taken indicated on plan by witness]. We ascended from the bottom of the bords as far as we could go towards the faces. We always obtained a distinct gas cap on the floor. We did not raise the lamp any higher because of danger. Mr. Wood withdrew his oil safety-lamp, and I went into the gaseous mixture with my electric safety-lamp. I
F. REED.]
C—l 4.
95
bottled enough samples for analysis up to a height of 6 ft. 6 in. from the floor. We went round the lower end of the rising bords, and there was no doubt about the quantity of gas present. There was 40 chains of bords filled with a gaseous mixture. I can show you those bords on the plan. They are 14 ft. wide, and average 10 ft. high. The area in question would be a cul-de-sac for gas. Towards the roof there was no ventilating-current. If you get gas at the bottom of a rising unventilated bord which has been a dead end, or is communicating with another bord falling in the opposite direction, you may rest assured that if there is a gas mixture down at the lower end of the inclined bord it is full right up to the top or apex. 119. Is it not on the same principle that if you go through a bord and find gas on the ground you need not look for it up above ?—You are perfectly right. There was 40 chains of bord 14 ft. wide and 10 ft. high full of a gaseous mixture; I cannot state exactly what percentage of gas was in the mixture; but there was 350,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture above 5-6 per cent., the minimum explosive limit. I think nobody would dispute either the quality or the quantity I found. The most explosive proportion of firedamp when mixed with air is about 10 per cent. The limits of the explosivepoint are from 5-6 to about 16 per cent., although the margin is somewhat in dispute. The samples that I took on the floor at the very bottom, according to Dr. Maclaurin's analysis, went 1-8 per cent, of methane (CHJ. It must be remembered that the report of the analyst is generally slightly less than the actual percentage taken in the mine, because there is bound to be some little leakage in the sample-bottle. At the bottom of the bords where we began to test for gas, the samples contained, according to the analysis, 1-8 per cent., 3-7 per cent., and 1-65 per cent. Then, at the level of my cap it was 5-4 per cent, and 9-4 per cent., about the most explosive mixture: but I did not go nearer the roof because we could not have lived there. We only tested our way up the foot of the bords because we would not have survived if we had gone farther up towards the top. These samples were not taken to ascertain the maximum percentage of gas present, but to prove that the foot of the poorly ventilated bords did contain gas. I could have got 10 per cent, of gas, the most explosive mixture, in every bord by going up a little farther. 120. You tested low ?—Yes. None of these samples contained afterdamp—the analyses shows that. 121. You measured the accumulation of gas: supposing you could measure the total emission after the explosion, would that measured by you be the whole amount emitted in those six days ?—No. 122. Was there any afterdamp when you tested at all ? —No, my samples were remarkably free from afterdamp. 123. Mr. Brown.] What was the'percentage of oxygen ?—l7 per cent, was the lowest. 124. Mr. Wilfwd.] If there was ventilation after the explosion, would some of the gas be removed as well as the afterdamp ?—Yes. It is more easy to remove the firedamp than the afterdamp. 125. That is to say, any computation of 350,000 cubic feet would be rather under the mark ?—To the extent of the amount of gas that had been carried away by the ventilation. There was ventilations of sorts after the explosion, otherwise my samples would have contained afterdamp. No doubt the indifferent ventilation carried away firedamp too. That is easily understood, as I got some firedamp in the main return. 126. Then, you say that from your test there is no question whatever that there must have been more gas there than you have measured ?—Given off since the explosion during those six days— certainly. 127. Can you tell me how much gas it is necessary to have to start an explosion ? I understand that you must have a concussion and a flame ? —An ignition of gas, a concussion, rising the coaldust. An ignition of gas to give the concussion which raises the dust. Professor Dixon went into that matter very thoroughly, and he is an expert upon the subject. He said a very small quantity of gas will cause an explosion. - 128. Are there any authorities on the subject ?—Yes ; there is no doubt that a very small quantity of gas is sufficient to cause an explosion. The highest authority on the subject is Sir R. A. S. Redmayne, Chief Inspector of Mines in Great Britain. He has written a work on the ventilation of mines, printed in 1911, and on pages 216 and 217 he lays down this principle. 129. Will you read us what he says on the point; lam anxious to know just how much gas it is necessary to have to cause an explosion ?—Professor Dixon, who is an authority upon the subject of dust-explosions, says that a very small quantity will start an explosion. 130. You are not contradicting the Professor ?—No, he is an authority on the subject of coaldust explosions, but Sir R. A. S. Redmayne is a higher authority—l believe the highest authority in the world —regarding explosions in mines. He says : " Now, a mixture of 9| vol. of dry air to 1 vol. of firedamp contains exactly the proper proportion of oxygen necessary to affect complete combustion of the firedamp, and ought therefore to be the most explosive mixture that can exist —one through which the flame would be expected to travel with the greatest rapidity. But that part of the mixture through which the flame has passed expands under the influence of the heat of combustion, and drives the still unconsumed part in front of it; the velocity so acquired by the latter must be added to the normal velocity of the propagation of the flame. The pressure due to the combustion of the above mixture when ignited in a closed space is equal to 102-6 lb. per square inch, and the calculated temperature of combustion is 3,902° F. The resulting damage from the explosion of, say, a few hundred cubic feet of such a mixture in a mine can therefore be well imagined." He goes on to say that, "It has been very generally observed that—(l) Little damage is done near the point of origin of the explosive flame, and for, say, 50 to 80 yards therefrom ; (2) then great damage is evidenced ; (3) and after the cessation of the advancing explosion there is evidence of a ' back-lash ' or rebounding force." 131. Supposing you describe it in your own words ?—As Mr. Fletcher says, the flame seeks for oxygen —the flame travels where there is the freshest air: it rushes forwards and then backward— so that the track of an explosion in a mine gives uncertain evidence of the point of origin. It will travel wherever there is oxygen.
a—l 4.
96
F. REED
132. What kind of a pace does it travel at ? —A tremendous pace. The temperature is 3,900° F. 133. Did you visit the spot where Martin's body was found ? —Yes, three times. 134. The position is marked " 43 " on plan AA ? —Yes. 135. Judging from the position of that body, can you say which man ignited the gas and started the explosion ? —I am satisfied in my own mind that it was Martin who started the explosion. I would like to say that six days after the explosion I reported to the Under-Secretary for Mines, before that body was found. I said that as the result of my inspection on the 17th and 18th I believed that I had discovered the origin of the explosion and the locality where the gas was ignited. I then thought the next man to Martin had ignited the gas. Previously Mr. Wood discussed the matter with me and 1 considered that the highest body up the bords was that of the man who had ignited the gas. Subsequently Martin's body was found farther up, and it was then clear to me that it was he who ignited the gas. 136. You sent a report a week previously ? —Yes, on the 29th September I reported that I believed I had found the point of origin. 137. In regard to the position of the other bodies, especially in regard to No. 36, do you know where No. 36 was found ?—Yes, No. 36 was the man whom I first thought had caused the explosion. 138. It is a remarkable thing for an explosion to take any course —backwards and forwards ? —No. 139. Then you cannot take any notice of the course of the- explosion—it went both ways ?—Yes. 140. But the men further away would get the greatest force ? —Yes, most assuredly, unless they were sheltered. 141. Do you know that there was one of the victims in the act of making water —the fly was unbuttoned and the skin burned ? —Yes, it may have been. 142. Do you say that according to Redmayne's book the force of the explosion gathers as it travels from the point of ignition I—Yes,1 —Yes, that is so. 143. Would it strike as hard in the main haulage-way after it came out of No. 5 ? —Yes, much greater in the main road. There were the necessary conditions there to cause an explosion of dust. 144. It increases in strength as long as it has got the material to feed on ? —Yes. 145. The Chairman.'] When once the gas has ignited and the concussion has taken place, the explosion of dust would keep on going ? —Yes, certainly. 146. To propagate you would not want further supplies of gas ?—No. I am excluding the idea of a blown-out shot. Further gas is not necessary after once the ignition has taken place. The concussion raises the dust and the flame travels through it, thus the explosion continues, gathering momentum. Ido not think there is a limit to the momentum. 147. What was the height of the bord where Martin's body was found ? —ll ft. 148. Is it a uniform height of 11 ft. from where Martin's body was found to where the'new fall is, or is it dome-shaped near the new fall ? —lt is higher there. 149. If that new fall in No. 6 bord took place after the explosion, would that make any difference for gas-testing conditions —the mere fact that there is a fall there, and the fact that you had got a lot of new material [plan discussed with Mr. Wilford by witness] ? —The air comes in at the point marked "B " in No. 4' bord on plan AA and goes out at bord No. 6 via the point marked "B " ; unless there is something in the nature of stoppings and brattice to direct it or convey it to the south end of those bords, it is natural that it will short-circuit and leave these bords unventilated. How can air go a long journey round these places unless directed ? 150. That is absolutely a gas-pocket? —Not only is it a gas-pocket, but the whole panel is a magazine for gas. The whole panel contains stagnant air. It is easy to mislead non-experts, but I would like this settled. [Plan discussed by Commissioners, Mr. Wilford, and witness.] The area enclosed by me with a dotted green line on plan Exhibit DD is absolutely unventilated. This plan is certified by Mr. George Langford, the surveyor to the Taupiri Company, and shows a supposed course of the ventilation of the mine. Upon close inspection of it I observe that a certain section marked by me in dotted green line, containing the point where Martin's body was found, and the old and new falls and several bords, is isolated and constitutes a panel—that is, not being connected by air-courses in the old workings on any side but one —that is, the north-east. Air would traverse the north-east extremity of such panel marked by me in solid green/by which solid line it would short-circuit unless directed up and down the bords including Nos. 4, 5, and 6 and others by means of brattices and stoppings, of which there is not the~slightest trace to be found. These bords rise, as shown upon plan AA, towards their blind ends. Bord No. 6, however, had a door which for ventilation purposes is practically a dead end. All gas given off from falls or other sources within that area would find its way to the upper ends of those bords, and there lodge, and would remain stagnant and would accumulate. I think you can see that there is no trace of brattice, or stoppings, or material for directing the air in that section. ; If there were but one or two of such that would not ventilate the section, because it would require a thorough system of brattice to send the air round. Brattice is always supported by frames. If an explosion had burned the brattice the frames would remain, as I have found in other parts of the mine the frames and also generally the brattices intact. All the conditions, therefore, are favourable for the lodgment here of an accumulation of gas, and also the production of a large volume of inflammable gas, such as would create a disaster in any colliery. There are two possible theories as to how Martin got there. If he got there through the southern end of bord No. 6 a miracle was performed. I will explain how. 151. First of all, the ground is highest there ? —Yes. The specific gravity of CH 4 is 0-55, or a little more than half the weight of air, air being 1. Well, the miner always looks for gas on the roof. The ends of these bords are the roof of that panel —the apex of the roof. They filled first. The firedamp given off at lower points finds its way slowly up like smoke. The firedamp given off at the fall
97
C—l 4
F. REED
filled the dome and overflowed upwards first. There is reason to believe that firedamp was given ofi at one or both of these falls ; consequently the dome of one or both of these falls filled first. The gas then entered the three bords and accumulated. The gas at the blind or highest end of the bords would no doubt be very pure. If Martin opened the door, as miners do not stand long with the door in their hands, there would perhaps be introduced 100 cubic feet of oxygen into that 68,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture which Martin ignited. I have taken it as 68,000 cubic feet, but the company's surveyor makes it 78,000 above Martin's head in those three parallel connected bords. The oxygen which Martin could introduce would render the conditions more dangerous because firedamp when present in greater proportions than 16 per cent, is not explosive and it is reasonable to assume that at that higher point it would be greater than 16 per cent. —at any rate, for a short distance. Therefore, the oxygen in the atmospheric air which Martin might have admitted by the door would dilute that rich CH 4 and produce an explosive mixture to be ignited by his-cap lamp ;if so, that would be the point of origin of the explosion. But I have more to say, and will show that he could not have entered bord No. 6by the door. You have it in evidence that his coat was found in my presence. We looked for it at a certain point, about 10 ft. or so up the bord from his body. 152. Who found the coat ? —The acting-manager, Mr. Penman, who was with me. I said, " What things he had with him will have gone up the bord," and Mr. Penman went along a little bit and found the coat on the ground covered with dust at the place where we expected to find it. 153. You expected to find his coat ? —We said, " We will find his coat," and we had found it there within two minutes. Mr. Penman found it. 154. What did that tell you ?—That the coat had been blown away from him. He had carried it on his arm. It had been blown up by the force of the explosion towards the door, being a light article. It was not burnt. Martin was apparently walking up the bord when he walked straight into tht gaseous mixture. Having a naked light he could not detect gas until the explosion occurred. He walked into this gaseous mixture, which was at first non-explosive, but it got richer and richer as he ascended, until his lamp entered the 5-6-per-cent. mixture, when the explosion took place. His body was not carried a great distance. He was not very much injured. A piece of coal was embedded in his head, but the upper part of his body was uninjured. This supports Redmayne's statement that the explosion is not so great at the point of ignition. Even his hair was not burned. His lower extremities were shattered, and very much injured. I have told you, I think, that I measured 68,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture above his head. That would be explosive when increased in volume by the richer gas towards the roof. There would, however, be more than 100,000 cubic feet of explosive mixture owing to the plus CH 4 contained in the roof. That is not strange considering that between the day of the explosion and the following Friday I measured 350,000 cubic feet in the vicinity. I also subsequently tested the gas with others, and we all got plenty at the big fall. I went up that fall, and had great difficulty in coming back owing to excessive gas in my lungs. 155. You have got gas there since ? —Yes. They put brattice up, but notwithstanding the brattice Mr. P. Gγ. Morgan, Mr. Penman, and myself went up to the end of the brattice at the fall on Friday last; and Mr. Penman got gas at the end of the brattice, where there was a considerable volume of air passing. An explosion took place there and put his light out, and this happened after, the ventilation had been well restored and a perceptible current was flowing close to where the gas in the lamp exploded. 156. Did you see any rails in the region where Martin's body was found ? —Mr. Morgan, Mr. Penman, and myself saw a pile containing some rails near the place. 157. Mr. Penman has told us that he saw two rails about 10 ft. out from the fall, and that they may have been 5 ft. or 8 ft. in it ? —I could not say anything about the number of rails which were sticking out. They were protruding a foot or two above the ground, and I assumed naturally there was a pile. 158. But there were rails there ? —Yes, certainly. 159. Would the line W—X on plan be about the spot ?—Yes, about it. They were put at the end of the fall. 160. —Mr. Penman puts them at A P ?—Somewhere there. 161. In No. 5 bord ?—Yes. 162. That is about half a minute's walk from where Martin's body was found ? —Yes. 163. If those were the rails that Martin was sent for that morning he was within half a minute's walk of them. ?—Yes. 164. What kind of an incline was he walking up ? —The incline is about 1 in 11. 165. Should not the place where Martin had passed to have got there have been inspected that morning before he went there, and chalked ?—lf he was to work there it should have been inspected with a safety-lamp ; the law requires that all working-places must be inspected before the men enter them. As to chalking, they only chalk the faces where the men are working ; they would not of necessity chalk along the travelling-road. 166. Should not the place where Martin passed to get those rails have been inspected that morning ? —Yes, that is compulsory. 167. From what you know now, from your observation and from what you have heard others testify, is there any doubt that if an inspection had taken place gas would have been discovered in that bord that morning ?—Yes, certainly, it would have been found that morning. 168. That is, if it had been properly examined ?—Yes. 169. That is to say, if the company had provided an efficient inspection of bord No. 6on the morning of the 12th September by a man with a safety-lamp, these lives would not have been lost ? ■ —That is true, absolutely. Nobody can contradict it, 170. Did you make an air-test measurement on your last visit ?—Yes, with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Penman.
13—C. 14.
a—l 4.
98
[f. reed.
171. You took an air-test measurement with Mr. Morgan and Mr. Penman ? —Yes. 172. Can you give me the result of that air-test ?—We took it in the main return, to see what the fan was producing. The manager was with us and said the fan was running under normal conditions. 173. When was this ?—Last Friday, 2nd October. We went down into the mine with Mr. Penman, and asked him to show us the best places in the main return airways communicating with the upcast shaft. We selected two places which were suitable for air-measurement. In the main return, little dip, we got 31,995 cubic feet per minute. In the other main return we got 11,600 cubic feet per minuteWe used two anemometers, and both Mr. Morgan and myself took the air-measurements, so that there was no error. 174. You checked each other ?—Yes. The total air was 43,630 cubic feet per minute. I also took air samples of the main return-air, possibly still short-circuited somewhat. It appeared to be very good air. 175. Mr. Dowgray.] It may have been short-circuited ?—Yes, Mr. Penman said it was. The ventilation of the mine is far from being restored yet. 176. Mr. Wilford.] Is not such a test as that worthless for the purpose of the mine, unless the air is not distributed into all the workings I—We1 —We were testing to see what the fan could do. Of course, you must distribute it throughout the workings of the mine to remove accumulations of gas. 177. What is the use of that test if the workings are not ventilated ?—Of course, the quantity of air produced by the fan does not prove adequate ventilation. 178. It does not prove distribution ? —No, that is so, although that fan under normal conditions would be adequate to supply the mine with the minimum quantity of air required by law —much more than the maximum quantity. With such a difficult mine to ventilate, if I were installing a new fan I would put in one with a capacity for 200,000 cubic feet per minute. I find that the area of workings in the Extended Mine is practically the same as at Ralph's Mine, whereas the fan at the Extended Mine has four times the capacity of that at Ralph's. If it were not necessary to put in a new fan at Ralph's with a capacity of 200,000 cubic feet, probably one would not have recently been ordered. 179. It has been said, Mr. Reed, during this inquiry that the law does not allow Inspectors to enforce the use of safety-lamps. Have you anything to say on that point ? Section 56 of the Goalmines Act deals with " defects not provided by extra express provisions in the Act " ? —But as regards safety-lamps there is special provision in Special Rule 14. 180. That rule says, " The underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended, and shall see that proper caution-boards or signals are placed and maintained for the purpose. He shall also examine the lamps, and shall immediately withdraw any that he may find unsafe. The underviewer or his deputy shall see that the roof and the sides in all working-places are properly secured by the person working in them, and that the roof and sides of every travelling-road be made and kept secure. The underviewer or his deputy shall visit every working-place as often as is practicable during each shift." Which part of that rule do you rely on ?—The first portion. The most important is this : "The underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended, and shall see that proper caution-boards or signals are placed and maintained for the purpose." That is the allusion which prohibits the application of section 56. lam not a lawyer, but Mr. Macassey is reported in the Dominion of the 25th September to have said that the Inspector of Mines could not enforce the use of safety-lamps, but provision would be made in the new Bill. Mr. Macassey : My remarks referred to Mr. Miller's opinion, and the point was that there was no reasonable ground for apprehending danger from firedamp. 181. Mr. Wilford.] Following on my question as to what part of Rule 14 you relied on, and your answer, I want to ask you this : considering the fact that Mr. Fletcher, on the 14th January, 1914, wrote to the Inspector of Mines admitting three burnings through gas-ignitions in the Taupiri mines, should not precautions have been taken by him in the way of safety-lamps ?—That is a matter of opinion. Mr. Fletcher may have acted honestly upon his opinion. I think they should have been in use. My letters show that fully, and they were written before the event. 182. I got the loan of Professor Dixon's evidence and my cross-examinations of him before this Commission, and I noticed on page 14 of his evidence that he said, " You will find gas if there is only 2J per cent, present " ?—Yes, he said that. 183. What are the recognized authorities on luminous flame tests ?—The British Royal Commission's last report, and Professor John Cadman, who went into details of the subject. I find that I myself can easily read 1J per cent. I have been experimenting considerably on this subject. At my request the Government imported gas-cap observation-machines, which have been established at the principal coal-mining centres from Whangarei in the north to Invercargill in the south. I had one of the machines at the Mines Court in the Auckland Exhibition, and I proved many times that I can easily see a 1 J-per-cent. cap, and a man with better Jeyesight can read | per cent. I can produce the British Home Office rules upon that subject and the Royal Commission report. I would refer you to the report therein of |Professor John Cadman, of the University of Birmingham, who was the expert appointed by the Home Office to investigate and make experiments on the subject. 184. What I want to know is whether you can find gas at less than 2| per cent. ?—Yes, Mr. Young read 1| per cent, distinctly. I can do the same. ijsf -185. When I had Mr. Wear in the box, I asked him how he tested for gas, and he held his arm up, not quite straight over his head, but at an angle, like that | position demonstrated]. I took a lamp and placed it in his hand, and suggested that at that height it would be impossible for him to detect gasl,by|the flame, because he could not see the cap ?—That is not the way to hold the lamp. Tolhold it* up like that is the action of an amateur. Of course, the range depends upon a r man's eyesight.
F. REED.]
C.—l 4.
99
186. When does the cap run to a triangle ? —At about 3 per cent. At 2 per cent, it is a truncated cone. [Diagram explained against the light of a window.] I have here the instructions issued by the Home Office to firemen and deputies for gas-testing in mines. [Instructions read by witness.] Here in Huntly they are using petroleum or kerosene in their lamps. The gas-testers should use colza oil. 187. I want to ask you another point, Mr. Eeed, re Mr. Miller's opinion ?—I glanced through it. 188. Did you see the statement of facts submitted to Mr. Miller by Mr. Bennie ? This is a copy of the letter to Mr. Miller upon which the opinion was framed : "On the 9th. July ultimo, a miner named William Kelly was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas in the Taupiri Coal Company's mine. The examining deputy reported finding gas in Kelly's working-place on the Ist July ultimo, but on each succeeding morning up to and including the 9th July (date of accident) the examining deputy reported the place clear (safe). The Coal-mines Act, 1908, section 60, states, ' Accident in mine frima facie evidence of neglect.' Special Rule 14, Second Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908, states, ' The underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended.' The manager did not order safety-lamps to be used, and Kelly was using a naked light. Under the above circumstances, is the manager guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14, Second. Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908 ? " I want to know are those facts which were submitted by Mr. Bennie to Mr. Miller sufficient to enable him to give any opinion other than the one he did ?—lf I were consulting lawyers I would tell them the whole of the circumstances as to all the ignitions. 189. At any rate, before any one could arrive at an opinion they would want to know the whole of the conditions in regard to the explosions ?—Yes, and more than that—very much more. 190. What more ?—They should know the unique conditions of the mine as regards the accumulations of gas in the old workings. There are other things also. I have them all down in my notebook—reasons why special measures should have been adopted at this mine. 191. Have you got them tabulated ?—These are the reasons why I wrote those six letters which foretold this disaster: (1) The large area of high workings to be adequately ventilated; (2) prequency of gas-ignitions, any of which, might have occasioned a holocaust, dust being present; (3) weakness of the Coal-mines Act; (4) naked lights and flame-producing explosives in use; (5) inexperienced men generally as far as gas-testing is concerned. As we have only one other known gassy mine in New Zealand, our New-Zealand-born colliers have no opportunity of studying the gas problem like the Home colliers, and from what I have seen of those coming up for their certificates, as examiner, I have found that they are generally tiros at the gas-test. 1 refer to the New-Zealand-born miners. The majority of the young men about these mines are New-Zealanders who have never had an opportunity of qualifying in gas-testing. As officials, however good and willing, they would not know gas when they got among it. Another reason for fear is the smallness of the fan. A fan with a capacity of 45,000 cubic feet a minute, although it supplied the minimum of 150 cubic feet of air per man per minute required by the Act, was inadequate to clear the noxious gases from such an enormous area of old workings standing open. Those are the reasons which caused my fears, which were based upon my experience at Durham, where we regarded an ignition of gas as a most serious thing. If such an occurrence happened without any one being injured it was looked upon as a let-off. If an ignition took place and there was not a disaster as a result we were thankful for it. Professor Dixon has said that a small quantity of gas would ignite a dust-explosion, which confirms my fear. 192. Do you know of any power under the present law by means of which the Inspector of Mines can increase the minimum quantity of air to provide adequate ventilation in old workings ?—Yes, section 40, subsection (1). 193. Although the Act provides a minimum, there is nothing to prevent the Inspector from increasing it ?—Not in the least; then there is Special Rule 3as well. 194. This is a question to which I want you to be careful about your answer : Was the ventilation provided by the Taupiri Company sufficient for the ventilation of that particular mine—l mean everywhere, old and present workings ?—As I was not in the mine before the explosion for a long time, I am unable to say what portions of the mine were well ventilated and which ill ventilated ; but a fan of 45,000 cubit feet capacity is inadequate, and I understand that Mr. Fletcher has already ordered one of 200,000 ft. capacity, so that he appreciates the fact that his fan is inadequate. Possibly a wiser man would have installed a larger fan years ago. 195. Under Special Rule No. 1, after dealing with the responsibility of the manager and the operative details of the mine being under his daily supervision, it says, " He shall be responsible for the appointment of a sufficient number of competent persons to carry out the requirments of the Coalmines Acts and the special rules, and also to see that the working of the mine is carried on with all reasonable provisions for the safety of the persons employed." Did the company, in your opinion, appoint a sufficient number of competent men to carry out the Coal-mines Act and to see that the mine was carried on with all reasonable provisions for the safety of the persons employed ?—That is a question upon which I would not like to express an opinion. It is not fair to ask me to express an opinion, as I was not in the mine for a long time before the explosion. 196. I want to sum up your evidence-in-chief with a few questions : Was this explosion caused by the use of a naked light ?—Yes. 197. Would the use of a safety-light by Martin, instead of a naked light, have prevented the explosion ?—Yes, if the safety-lamp was in a safe condition—that is, if it was an efficient safety-lamp, and he had handled it properly. The explosion then would not have occurred. 198. Was there, in your opinion, an accumulation of gas in bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 ?—Yes, a large accumulation, in my opinion. .199. Could the presence of that gas have been discovered if an examining deputy had visited those bords prior to the workmen going in ?—Yes, certainly.
C—l 4.
100
[f. reed.
200. Are not the ends of bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 higher than the line on which the mixture becomes explosive in those bords ?—To the best of my belief. The ends of those bords 4, 5, and 6 are the highest points in the panel which I have marked in green and that panel represents the area affected, but I would like to say that I am not counting,the|tops of the falls, which are higher than the faces of the bords. 201. Was there any sign after the explosion of their having been any bratticing or any form of conducting pipes for taking the air into those old workings, and especially into bords 4, 5, and 6 ? — Within the area in bords 4, 5, and 6 which 1 have marked in green on plan AA, the air is certainly shortcircuited. The panel which I have marked in green line upon the plan shows no doors or stoppings by which air could have been directed up the bords. Therefore if the plan is correct the whole of that air was short-circuited, and the surveyor has shown upon the plan in arrows that it is short-circuited. They are red arrows put upon the plan by the surveyor of the company showing it to be short-circuited. 202. Was there any sign of bratticing having been in those bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 ?—I saw no signs of it, and I examined three times most carefully. 203. Is there any sign of staging upon which the bratticing could have been carried ?— The only bratticing I saw was brand new bratticing up to the fall in No. 5 bord. It was placed there between my visits after the explosion. 204. On the course that the explosion travelled, where there had been bratticing did any part of the staging still remain ?—Yes, nearly the whole of the staging, and the brattice was torn in shreds but hanging thereto in places. 205. Can you trace the brattice or the staging along the course of the explosion ?-- -Yes, wherever I went in the new workings, but there never is any brattice maintained in the old workings. 206. When you estimated something like 350,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture in the bords, that was after the explosion ? -Six days after the explosion. 207. Are you satisfied that the amount that you then measured did not represent the amount that had been given off in those six days ?—That is my firm belief. 208. It is a fact that in the air you took samples there was no afterdamp—that there had been a through current of air which had carried away the afterdamp as well as the gas ? —Some current of air —whether it was a through current or a side current I could not say. 209. The door which opens into No. 6 is placed at the highest part of No. 6 ?—Yes. 210. And therefore if a man entered that bord by that door he would come in where the mixture was strongest ? —lf he entered through the door, yes, providing the door was ordinarily close fitting. 211. If a man entered at the opposite end of bord No. 6, it being lower than the entrance where the door is, the mixture would be weaker ? —Yes. 212. And as he ascended towards the door, the mixture would become stronger ? —Yes, provided there the accumulation reaches to the top and the door is closed. 213. Is it necessary, in your opinion, that these old workings should be protected by locked doors, or fences, or both ?—lf the doors are intended to keep people out they should be locked as required by special rule, and if they are intended to admit some air they should be fitted with ventilators and regulators so that each bord would have its proper air-supply. The air would then be distributed through the whole section, instead of being sent by the shortest way only. I would not trust a fence in any dangerous ground. I consider that the doors should be locked, and there should also be danger notices threatening the men with prosecution for trespass. 214. Mr. Napier.] Would you please tell us what are your official duties in regard to State coalmines ?—I am Consulting Engineer for the Department in regard to State coal-mines. 215. You consult with whom ? —With the Under-Secretary whenever he requires advice in connection with the State collieries. 216. Supposing we confine your description of your duties to those regarding the coal-mines ? — lam on the Board of Examiners for all mining officials. lam consulted regarding State coal matters. 217. I want to know what are your duties with regard to privately owned coal-mines ? —I have no statutory duties at all. Ido what the Under-Secretary tells me to do. If he wants me to report upon a special subject Ido so. I am not authorized to communicate direct with my colleagues the Inspectors of Mines. lam not authorized to write an official letter to anybody in New Zealand or to my colleagues; all correspondence goes through my chicf —the Under-Secretary for Mines. If I notice anything alarming, such as this Taupiri case, or if I have any special matter regarding the safety of the mines, &c, to report, I address my chief, the Under-Secretary. If I see anything that should be reported in connection with the inspection I write to the Under-Secretary, and draw his attention to any officer who I think is not performing his duty. Sometimes I may draft the letter, but it always goes through the Under-Secretary. If I find that a mine is using dangerous explosives, such as this Taupiri Company is using—flame-producing explosives —I communicate with my chief, and he writes to the Inspector of Mines for the district advising him what to do, which is generally repeating my request, but I have no official position as regards the Inspectors. lam consulted by my chief, and I advise him to the best of my knowledge. I also examine miners who are applicants for certificates of competency upon the safety provisions, together with my other colleagues on the Board. I edit the Mines Department annual report for Parliament. I am editor of the Government mines report upon all coal and gold mines. I prepare and collect all statistics of all mines in New Zealand, both coal and gold mines. I have to do with most of the problems in connection with mining matters, such as roads on goldfields and subsidies for mining fields. These matters are frequently referred to me. 218. Is that a fair summary of your duties ?-—ln the main. There may be other matters of detail, but that is the general outline of my work. 219. Among your duties are you required to report as to whether the Inspectors of Mines are doing their duty ?—lf lam asked to report as to their duty, I would do so. If I see defects, such as I
F. REED.]
101
C—l 4.
have seen here, of course I write to my chief, as my letters show. I appreciated the danger here. Take my letters as an example regarding Ralph's colliery as to the way in which 1 carry out my duties. I have no direct power, therefore I act through my chief. 220. Do you initiate a report as to the incompetence of a Mining Inspector, or do you wait for an instruction from the Under-Secretary ?—Do you mean do I find fault with my colleagues 1 221. Do you initiate such reports, or do you wait for a request from the Under-Secretary ?—I report the actual facts as I find them, leaving my chief to condemn or otherwise. 222. When you say that you have to report as to the competency or ability ?—1 did not say that I reported upon the competency. 223. You do not report upon the competency or ability of an Inspector of Mines ?■ —I am not requested to do so. 224. You do not do it ?—Naturally, I do not do what I am not requested to do, excepting when I see a serious defect. As regards my colleagues Ido not report them and condemn their actions. I report upon the facts of the case, and my chief does the condemning, if any, not me. 225. You would report the facts upon which an accusation might be founded ? —My chief can form his own conclusions. 226. You do report the fact ?—To the best of my knowledge, always, sir. 227. In order that you may be in a position to report the fact, do you place yourself in a position of ascertaining the facts ?—I always get enough facts to satisfy me in my own mind perfectly that lam right and my judgment is sound to base my report on. 228. And you are editor of the report to Parliament ? —The whole of the reports of the Inspectors of Mines are sent to me, and for the last eight years 1 have edited them for the information of Parliament, and I have never received complaints as to what appeared in those reports. I do not write the Inspector's reports —I am not responsible for the words contained therein. I simply put their report in as appendices. I can delete nothing that appears above the writer's signature. Ido not bind myself to agree with any opinions in such reports; but, of course, my own report lam entirely responsible for. 229. You are the reporter to Parliament on the condition of the coal-mines of New Zealand ?— I address the Under-Secretary, who hands the report to Parliament. 230. Do you know where it is going ? —Yes. 231. We may call it the parliamentary report ? —lt is the official report of the Department for the year. 232. Your official report ?— Yes. 233. Representing the Mines Department ? —Representing the Inspection Branch of the Department. 234. Then have you always qualified yourself to be able to state the facts correctly to Parliament ? —To the best of my belief, yes. Igo through the whole of New Zealand, and every little and big mine in the Dominion receives my attention, more or less. Ido not claim that I can devote much attention to any individual mine, but considering the great area that I have to deal with, I think my reports are reliable, to the best of my knowledge, and always have been so. I have never received complaints on the subject. 235. Do you think your reports are a sufficient guide for Parliament ? —Parliament has never asked for any more. 236. Do you consider that your report, together with those of the Inspectors of Mines as appendices, constitute a sufficient guide for Parliament ?—A guide on what question ? 237. On the question of privately owned coal-mines I—Myl—My reports are proof of that. 238. Are the reports sufficient to enable Parliament to make the necessary provisions by regulation ? —They are considered to be. 239. Do you consider them to be —I want to know ? —Well, Parliament has raised my salary, so that my reports must be considered adequate. 240. Parliament has raised your salary ?—Yes. It is at present £600 per annum and travellingexpenses 15s. a day for the one appointment—that of Inspecting Engineer. 241. I want to seek to ascertain whether your services are worth that, or worthless to the country ? —That is an insult, sir. 242. You say that in your judgment your reports are a sufficient guide ; have you reported to Parliament at any time as to the state of the Taupiri mines ?—I only discovered their state this year. I have not reported to Parliament for this year yet. It was Christmas or the beginning of the New Year when I first became aware of those explosions. You may rest assured when I write my next report I will deal very fully with the matter. 243. How long have you occupied your present position ?—About eight years. 244. Then, for seven years it was possible for you to occupy your present position and to keep the country in the dark as to the conditions of the Taupiri Mine ? —The condition of the Taupiri mines was obtained by accident, not by report from the company, which suppressed the facts. 245. Then you really discovered the true facts about the Taupiri Mine by accident ?—Yes, by accident I discovered them ; by good fortune, I may say. 246. Then if you had not had that good fortune you might have gone on for another ten years without discovering the condition of these mines ?—Apparently, dealing with such people for suppressing facts. 247. Then you consider that the people connected with this company have a special aptitude for suppressing facts from the Inspector of Mines ?—ln this case they have been most successful—in the case of these previous explosions. 248. Do you consider that a system of inspection which can be rendered nugatory by the deceiving of officials over a long period of years is a satisfactory one ?—I say that it is the unsatisfactory system of management which is to blame.
C—l 4.
102
[f. reed.
249. But 1 was speaking of the system of inspection ?—The Inspector, in my opinion, has done his duty to the best of his ability. If he has been imposed upon by deceitful people I cannot help that. Fortunately, however, for us in New Zealand we have not many such people. 250. May I take it that these people —these deceitful owners of mines—have deceived the Inspecting Engineer as to the true condition of the mine ?—You can deceive any man once, but not twice. 251. Then it is possible, if a sufficient amount of deceit is used, to deceive and keep in the dark the Inspecting Engineer of Mines in New Zealand ?—Of course. 252. And, as a matter of fact, for seven years the Inspecting Engineer of MinesjinJNew Zealand did not know the condition of the Taupiri mines, and was successfully deceived ? —You deceived all New Zealand ; you deceived the public. 253. But you were deceived ? —Absolutely. I was uninformed of the state of affairs here until I found it out by accident. 254. May I put it this way : that , unless you are informed ofj the condition of the| mine by the owners, under existing circumstances you are quite unable to know what the condition of the mine is ? —No, you are utterly wrong ; there are two ways for me to be acquainted with the condition of the mine. First, by the Inspector of Mines :he may tell my chief the condition of the mine—lie does not consult with me ; he does not address me officially, but addresses my chief, who sends me the Inspector's monthly reports for my remarks. 255. I asked you if you are not informed by the mine-owners of the condition of the mine, have you any method of finding out other than those you have enumerated —that is, from the reports of the Inspector of Mines to the Under-Secretary ? —Supposing I am ordered by my chief to make a special inspection of a mine, Ido so and then form my own opinions. But if such conditions as explosions occur from time to time, as at Ralph's Colliery, there is not much necessity to search for further information as to the dangerous condition of the mine. 256. Then you dot not inspect a mine unless specially instructed to do so by the Under-Secretary 1 —As far .as coal-mines are concerned, that is generally so. Unless lam asked by the Inspector of Mines to accompany him, or by the Under-Secretary, I would not encroach upon the duties of my colleague the District Inspector. 257. Then, is the value of your report only that of the report of one who has heard the facts from the Inspectors or the Under-Secretary ?—My annual report is a summary, touching upon the main features for the year. 258. A summary of what ?—What I think the public and Parliament would like to know. 259. As to what ? —As to the condition and the prosperity of the industry. My report is an editorial on the salient features for the most part contained in the reports of the Inspectors of Mines. I refer generally to the prosperity of the industry, safety precautions, &c. I do not go into minor details. The Inspector in his report deals with what he has found. 260. Then your report is not based upon personal investigation and inspection ?—Not always. 261. It is never so based unless you are specially instructed to report ? —Unless with regard to gold-mines. 262. We are dealing with this explosion—in regard to coal-mines, I mean ?—I say, then, my report is cursory —the details are supplied by the Inspector of Mines, who is the responsible statutory officer. 263. You are not a responsible officer ?—Not a responsible officer as a District Inspector. 264. Are you in any sense a responsible officer ? —I am responsible for the duties which my chief asks me to carry out. 265. Only those ?—I am responsible in other matters —as a member of the Board of Examiners. 266. lam referring to the inspection of coal-mines ? —I am not a responsible officer in regard to the inspection of coal-mines. «267. You concur with the description given by Mr. Bennie as to your duties ? —Absolutely. 268. Had you any reason to suspect Mr. Bennie of not satisfactorily performing his duties ?—Well, now, I have written Mr. Bennie private letters. 269. Ido not want that. Give a public answer to my public question ? —ln this matter of these explosions Mr. Benrie and myself looked at things from a different aspect. 270. That is quite permissible, but it is no answer ? —You want me to condemn him, and I will not do so. 271. I know you cannot condemn him ? —I am not going to condemn him because he disagrees with me. I cannot justly condemn him because he holds a different opinion from me. 272. You are a responsible officer appointed to travel round the mines and furnish a report, for which the Government pays you a considerable salary, and I am seeking to ascertain the value of the return they get for it ?—You are confining me to the coal-mines —one portion only of my duties. 273. I did not say you were getting £600 a year for the inspection of the coal-mines alone. I say it is a ridiculously inadequate sum if the duties are performed ?—They are performed. 274. Had you any reason to suspect that Mr. Bennie was not performing his duties as Inspector of Mines satisfactorily ? —I cannot give you a Yes-No answer. I will tell you what happened between Mr. Bennie and myself. I will give you, perhaps, a little more than you wish. The letters are very explanatory. 275. We have Mr. Bennies letters ?—I want to refer to a point only. 276. We do not want to go over Mr. Bennies letters again ?—Will you kindly produce the letter in which Inspector Bennie does not recommend safety-lamps being used in this mine. [Letter produced, dated the 7th August, 1914.] He says :" I cannot recommend that safety-lamps only be used in these mines for two reasons —(1.) Very little gas is found in the miners' working-places; it has practically always been found in falls of the roof of the old workings, and two officials are specially appointed to examine the old workings; during the week daily inspections are made, and a full round of the work
F. REED.]
103
a—l 4.
is made during the week. (2.) The working-places are 10 ft. to!Bft. high. The light from a safety-lamp is very poor." That is where Ido not agree with Mr. Bennie. 277. That is a difference of opinion ?—Of course. 278. But that does not show incompetence ? —I am not here to express my opinion of the competency of my colleague. 279. I wish to ask you, do you say you decline to state whether you formed any opinion as to the competency of the Inspector of Mines ?—I formed a different opinion to his on this question of safetylamps. lam not going to call him an incompetent man because he disagrees with me. 280. That is a difference of opinior ? —You have answered the question. 281. I suggest that that is merely a difference of opinion, and is not an indication of incompetency ? —I am rot going to say. 282. Is it an indication ?—I am not going to condemn my colleague for incompetence. 283. You have told us that one of your duties is to report as to the way in which the Inspectors of Mines are performing their duties ? —I draw the Under-Secretary's attention, in the hope that he will address them and ask them to rectify defects which I may consider to exist. 284. Did you ever see prioi to your visit to Huntly any defects ir the administration of Mr. Bennie ?—I was requested by the Minister of Mines, Mr. R. McKenzie, to inspect Ralph's Mine when Mr. Wright was manager. I then saw defects, which were rectified promptly by Mr. Wright. 285. During Mr. Bennies tenure of office as Inspector of Mines you did discover some small matters of neglect in the mine, and these were rectified by Mr. Wright ?—Yes, promptly rectified. 286. What were they ? —The ladders in the shaft had no protection, and a man getting nervous might fall off. I asked for a frame to be put round them. Another defect was the absence of directionpointers in the mine towards exits in case of accident. The lights might all have become extinguished, and-I had notices put up pointing the way out to the travelling-road. Another defect was to do with the telephone. I asked the manager to have the telephone carried farther in towards Taupiri West, in case of inundation by water. I insisted that a connection should be made between the three shafts. The company wished to delay it, but I insisted upon it being done. These matters were then promptly put right 287. The Chairman.'] What connection has that with the Inspector ?—lt has nothing at all to do with the Inspector, but these are defects which I myself found out and had rectified, after being specially requested by the Minister to inspect the mine. 288. Mr. Napier.] These matters had nothing to do with the Inspector ?—Mr. Bennie was then Inspector, but he apparently had not noticed those items. I observed these defects and had them rectified. Ido not remember if I told the Inspector. 289. These things were not defects in Mr. Bennies administration ? —They were within his administration. He had not perhaps observed them, or perhaps he did not think they were as important as I did. 290. You think he had not observed them ? Did you report that fact to the Under-Secretary ?— Yes, naturally I would report it; but I have not a copy of my report here. 291. You believe you did report to the Under-Secretary that defect in the administration of Mr. Bennie. You are not so simple as you seem. I am not referring to defects in the mine, but to defects in the administration of the Inspector of Mines. You have now given us a detailed account of certain defects in the mine. You said you did not consider him much to blame for those ? —I did not. 292. Did you report that as a black mark against him ?—I think he had just overlooked those minor matters. 293. Did you report it as a circumstance against his reputation ?—No. 294. Therefore, may I take it that during the whole time of his term of office you have not reported any facts against him which would indicate that he was incompetent or unreliable ? —Not a word. He has different opinions from me. It is for our chief to determine which is right. 295. Prior to your visit to Huntly on this occasion when did you last inspect Ralph's Mine ?—A little time ago, but I have not been down Ralph's Mine since the Royal Commission on Mines was here. I have never been asked to inspect, and I have had no occasion to. 296. Would you go at all if you were not asked ? —lt depends upon circumstances. If there was something I was uninformed about I would possibly go, but there are a hundred and sixty collieries in New Zealand, besides many gold-mining claims and dredges, so that it is impossible for me to attempt a regular examination of over three hundred New Zealand mines. 297. One of my objects is to endeavour to ascertain whether one Inspecting Engineer is sufficient— whether the present control is adequate to give the public the necessary assurance that everything is right ?— Under the new Bill the Inspecting Engineer is to be Chief Inspector of Coal-mines. 298. Js it not a fact that you are at present an Inspector without a district ? —I was gazetted for no district. 299. That means for all districts ? —Not according to section 23 of the Act. 300. What were you gazetted for ?—I had no authority to enter a coal-mine for any purpose. The manager could refuse me the right of entry, and my right of entry was questioned at Kaitangata. I received that appointment in consequence, at my own request. 301. But you appreciate the significance of my question. Are you not an Inspector of Mines without any special district being assigned to you ? —That is so. 302. Therefore, can you not lawfully enter any mine ?—Yes. 303. And for three years you left Ralph's Mine unvisited by yourself ?—Yes ; I only became aware of the danger nine months ago, but the evidence I obtained was tremendously strong, and there was no need for me to make an inspection to ascertain the danger. The Inspector was here eight times this year. I would not encroach upon his duties. It would have been repugnant to me.
C—l 4.
104
|f. reed.
304. You in no sense act as a supervisor of the work of the Inspectors of Mines ?—Not officially, no. I have no instruction to act as a supervisor. I have no orders to control these gentlemen, nor even to consult with them. 305. Have you any power of supervising the work of the Inspectors of Mines ?—I have no official power. 306. And have you any private power ?—We all should have the personal equation. 307. Do you exercise the personal equation by going down a mine ?—I do not interfere with the Inspector in performing his statutory duties. 308. Have you any power, official or private, to supervise the work of the Inspectors of Mines ?-- No, I have not. I may take it upon myself to investigate and form an opinion. 309. But that is valueless to the public because you do not report it ?—I report it when desirable to my chief. 310. You form your opinions as to their ability ?—I keep my opinion to myself. 311. Do you report it to the Under-Secretary ?—Do you think I would write sneakingly ? 312. That is not an official opinion ?—Absolutely not. 313. Then, so far as the supervision by you of the work of the Inspectors of Mines is concerned, your services are of no value to the public ?—The supervision—that is rather vague. If lam requested to report upon a matter Ido so. If I find a defect I report it if it is something I consider worthy of reporting. That is my duty. 314. I want to know whether, so far as your official duties are concerned, any value is obtained in the way of supervising the work of inspection ?—I have no authority to supervise the Inspectors of Mines, but I think the Inspecting Engineer may when the new Bill is passed into law. 315. Therefore, it is correct to say that the work of the Inspectors of Mines have not been supervised ?—I say that they are under the direction and control of the Under-Secretary for Mines. 316. Except by the Under-Secretary ?— -He may consult me, and I give him my assistance. 317. I want to know what is the nature of the supervision of the work of the Inspectors ?—They are controlled by nobody but the Under-Secretary for Mines. 318. Does the Under-Secretary visit the Mines ?—No, not often. 319. Is the Under-Secretary a technical mining engineer ?—No. 320. He is the civil administrator of the Department ?—Yes ; the permanent head. 321. How often have you been asked to report to the Under-Secretary during the last three years as to the condition of the Taupiri Mine ?—I have not been asked once during the last three years, but I have written voluntarily eight letters since I knew of the previous explosions. I have also reported the company for escaping, in my opinion, the payment of royalty. 322. Then you are also a debt-collector ?—I was asked by the Government to find out the companies which were evading payment of royalty on coal, and I believed that the Taupiri Company had been working Crown land without payment of royalty. They were, in my opinion, behindhand in certain payments. I was asked to make that investigation, and I did. 323. Do you suggest that they were defrauding the Crown ?—Not defrauding the Crown, but they were a bit backward in their payments. 324. You had to hurry on the payment of the accounts ?—I was asked to look into the matter, and did so. 325. Did you tell the Commission that among your other duties was to advise the Under-Secretary in regard to problems on mining matters ?—General problems—from water-races to applications for subsidies and grants. lam also on the Board of Examiners and several other Boards for the examination of mine officials, engine-drivers, schools of mines, &c. 326. They are not problems ?—Sometimes they are problems to me. 327. May we take it that the security of human life is certainly the most important problem ?— Yes. 328. You have to deal with that problem so far as the New Zealand Mines Department is concerned ?—Absolutely no. I volunteered this information about this mine gratuitously. I discovered it accidentally. 329. Your information was given thoroughly voluntarily I —Yes. 330. What do you mean by gratuitously ?—My chief did not ask me to write those letters regarding the danger at Ralph's Mine. I did it without his request. 331. Did you consider it was part of your duty ?—I did. 332. Then you were performing your official duties ?—Well, being an official of the Department, when I received this information I communicated with my chief on the subject. 333. Did you consider it was the right and proper thing to do ?—I would not have done it unless I had. 334. May we consider this, then, that so far as the safety of human life is concerned, you would always consider it your duty to look after it ?—Yes, I have done so. If I see the danger I will go out of my way to draw my chief's attention to it. 335. If you have not inspected this mine for three years, and not often during the previous four years, you knew nothing about it ?—I have been down when they were driving the crosscut to Taupiri West shaft. 336. Prior to three years ago ?—Yes. The Inspector of Mines prosecuted the company for insecure pillars, as the company would not do as the Inspector asked. The company broke the law, and got off by the skin of its teeth, I think. 337. The case was dismissed ?—Yes ; but the company rectified matters afterwards by connecting up with the Taupiri West shaft. I came up and saw that it did so.
F. REED.]
105
C. -14.
338. The Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited) tried to get out of something which you considered it right and proper to do ?—Yes, because Mr. Roderick McKenzie, then Minister of Mines, asked me to act in the matter. 339. Then, the value of your services to the State in connection with coal-mines is only the value represented by your reports which you are instructed to make ?—As regards certain points in connection with State coal-mines my duties are official. My duties are carried out in the office as well as at the mines. 340. Your duties, so far as the stability and safety of coal-mines are concerned ?—I have told you that half a dozen times. 341. Is the value of your services only what is represented by your visits or actions when visiting the mine ?—No, I believe my services have saved a great deal of trouble and money. 342. You said to the Commission that you were here to tell the truth, and that up to that time that had not been done by some others ?—I added "to a great extent, in my opinion." I said 1 intended to tell the whole truth, which up to my giving evidence had not been told to a great extent, in my opinion. 343. Do you mean by the truth, that which differs from, your opinion ?—No ; " the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth." 344. Do you mean merely that which differs from your opinion ?—I mean on questions of fact. 345. Now, when you say "to a great extent," can you further explain that term by telling us whether each witness to a great extent concealed the truth, or whether a number of witnesses stated what was false, and a number stated what was true ?—I shall not specify, even if you ask me. In my opinion, there was some concealment of the truth. If you ask me further, I shall not answer you. 346. You tell us that the truth has been concealed to a great extent : do you mean as far as a large number of persons are concerned, or that all the persons have not spoken the truth ? —I did not say all the persons. 347. You mean that a number of the witnesses have spoken the truth ? —Some witnesses have told the truth. 348. Entirely ?—I believe they have—some of them. 349. Others have stated what is false ? —ln my opinion, untrue as to facts. 350. Taking the mining experts, do you class them in the category of truth-tellers or in the other ? —Mining experts are both good and bad. 351. But the mining experts who have given evidence in this case ?—I shall not specify. I decline to name whom I mean. lam not going to pick them out. 352. Some of those who have given expert evidence, you believe, have sworn falsely ? —They have not told the whole truth. 353. They have suppressed the truth ? —Well, yes, they have suppressed the whole truth, in my mind. I feel sure that certain gentlemen here have not told the whole truth in their evidence, but I shall not mention their names. 354. The Deliberately, do you mean ? —I say they have not given the whole circumstances as known to them. 355. Such as they thought would be of use to this Commission ?—They could have given more information to this Commission than they have done. Perhaps they have not wilfully suppressed it, but the whole truth has not come out in connection with this inquiry. 356. Mr. Napier.] You mean " suppressed," and you adhere to " suppressed " ? —Yes, I do adhere to it. I think they could have been more candid in giving the whole truth. I made my first remark in haste ; I will withdraw. I will say that some witnesses, in my opinion, have not helped the Commission to the full extent of their knowledge and ability. 357. When you are nettled do you speak in haste ?—lt is not often that I have been connected with a case such as this. 358. You have had to do with a great many Royal Commissions and inquiries ?—Yes, several. 359. You are not a novice ?—No, possibly. 360. Until Mr. Fletcher's report to Mr. Bennie on the explosions which caused the injuries to Kelly and others, you knew nothing about the explosions in these mines ?—I knew nothing till last Christmas. 361. As far a-s explosions are concerned, the public have no guarantee that the Mines Department is well informed ? —ln this case because the fact was suppressed. I think, generally, we know. I think this is a unique case of suppression. I have never known another company suppress facts .regarding explosions as this one has done. 362. You have told us that until lately you did not know that any gas was generated in the Taupiri Mine ?—I did not think it was in dangerous quantities here before I was told. 363. Did not you tell us how surprised you were when the men told you about the explosions ? — No ; I was surprised because of gas being present in dangerous quantities. Every mine gives off gas in small quantities. 364. It is impossible to get a coal-mine without a trace of gas ? —Yes, without a trace. 365. The gas is in the coal ?—Yes. 366. Then, when you said to the men at the Exhibition, " You have no gas up there," you meant in dangerous quantities ? —ln perceptible quantities. 367. That is to say, in quantities of more than \\ per cent. ?—Just so. 368. Then, the Mines Department and the Inspecting Engineer of Mines were for seven years in entire ignorance of the fact that gas in perceptible quantities was generated in the Taupiri mines ? — That is true. 369. Do you consider that a system which permits that is adequate ? —I do not think it is adequate. I think there might be more Inspectors in a country like this.
14—C. 14.
C—l 4
106
F. REED
370. But, Mr. Reed, the gas when found is always reported in the deputies' books ?—ls it. 371. You have seen the books :do you deny that it is ? —I do not always see the books. 372. Therefore you cannot say ?—I cannot say. 373. Do you consider a system of inspection is adequate which does not provide that the Inspecting Engineer shall see the deputies' books containing their daily report ? —Do you mean me to see every deputy's book in New Zealand. 374. I mean a system which permits you to see those books ? —I have never heard of such a thing —that the Inspecting Engineer should examine the whole of the books of the deputies in the country. You would want half a dozen Chief Inspectors of Mines or Inspecting Engineers to do all you suggest. 375. Do you consider it to be the duty of Inspectors of Mines to report to the Under-Secretary when gas is discovered ? —Yes, I do ; and I consider that they should report every case where firedamp is found in a mine. 376. If it be true that for more than seven years —indeed, for nearly twenty years—these books of the deputies show that gas was found, and that those facts were not reported to the Under-Secretary, would you consider it negligence on the part of the Inspector of Mines ? —No ; the Inspector of Mines is not to duplicate the work of every official in the mine. You have already heard that it took two of your Inspectors a week to go round your old workings. 377. I refer to the books ?—You said to check those books. 378. I say to report when gas is mentioned in those books ? —-I say the Inspector should report when gas is found. 379. Do you say that that has never been done ?—No ; I have seen it myself in Inspector Bennies reports since Christmas. 380. Concerning the Taupiri mines ?—Yes. 381. Then, the Mines Department was aware that there was gas in the Taupiri Mine ? —Since Christmas, to my knowledge. 382. Then, Mr. Bennie only since Christmas became aware of those explosions and that gas was present ? —Mr. Bennie became aware of them shortly after I did. 383. If he says that he was aware that gas was discovered in the mines before that, but not in dangerous quantities, would you believe him ? —I would. 384. Do you think he ought to have reported it ? —I do. 385. And do you say that he only reported the presence of gas since last Christmas ? —To the best of my recollection. Ido not remember him having reported it before. 386. You, as Inspecting Engineer, believed up till last Christmas that there was no appreciable quantity of gas in these mines ? —That is true. 387. And that belief was not well-founded? —You must not say it was not well-founded, because I had been deceived by the company. 388. The facts would not justify it ? —For you deceived the Government by not reporting the explosions before you were compelled to do so. 389. The facts did not justify your belief ? —What facts did not justify my belief ? 390. The facts in regard to the mine as to gas ?—I really cannot see what you are getting at. 391. Did the actual condition prior to last Christmas of the Taupiri mines, regarding gas, justify the belief you held as to the gas in Ralph's Mine ? —The actual condition was bad prior to Christmas. I did not know the amount of gas in the mine until I was informed of the explosions about Christmas. 392. The Chairman.] Did the amount of gas turn out as you thought ? —My opinion as to the quantity of gas has been proved to be right by my subsequently measuring it. 393. Mr. Napier.] You have said that prior to Christmas last the condition of the mine was bad ? —The actual condition was bad. 394. Was that ever reported to the Under-Secretary ?—No, not until after I found out about the explosions. 395. Do you say that the slight explosions which caused those minor accidents to Kelly and others were the circumstances which justified you in believing that the condition of the mine was bad ?— That together with other things, and the conditions as I have recounted them to Mr. Wilford. You had there all the conditions for a holocaust by the ignition of gas, even a small ignition. 396. Then, I understand you to agree with Professor Dixon that a very small quantity of gas is sufficient to begin, an explosion ? —A small quantity of gas. I knew it before I ever saw or heard of him, and my knowledge is confirmed by what he said in evidence after he experimented with my sample of coaldust. 397. Then we may take it that the existence of a small quantity of gas in a mine would oblige you to class that mine as a bad mine ?—You have to consider other matters as well as gas. 398. Those are the words of Professor Dixon, and you accept them ?—Yes. 399. Will you tell us what you mean by a small quantity ? —The limit of the quantity in cubical contents I would not like to say. I would not fix the minimum which would be sufficient to raise dust and cause an explosion after the ignition. 400. Do you mean to say you do not know ?—lf I were to express a minimum it would be more or less a guess. Ido not think anybody knows. It depends upon the inflammability of the dust. 401. It would be a guess in any case ? —Not having tested it in this mine to see what is necessary to explode, it would be a guess. 402. Would you experiment in the mine to see how much it would take to blow it up ?—You have been trying until you succeeded. 403. You say then that the mine-owners of the Taupiri Mine have been experimenting to see howmuch gas would be required to blow it vp —the people who created the explosion in the mine have been experimenting ? —Accidentally experimenting.
F. REED, j
107
C—l 4.
404. Will you explain to me what you mean by " experimenting" (- The ignitions which have taken place in this mine were accidental, and any one of the ignitions might have created a holocaust. 405. What has that to do with a holocaust ?—I do not know what you are trying to get at. 406. Do you adhere to the statement that the management has been experimenting in the mine with a view to blowing it up ?—No, these accidental ignitions might possibly have created a holocaust. 407. You say that you do not know the minimum quantity of gas that would be sufficient to generate an explosion with Taupiri coal. May we take it that if a mine contained the minimum quantity of gas which would generate an explosion, you would class that mine as dangerous ?—Yes. K)8. If you do not know what is the minimum quantity of gas required, how can you classify a mine as dangerous '(— -If I saw a gas-cap in a. safety-lamp over a certain percentage I would legard that mine as dangerous under such conditions as obtained in this mine. If there were accumulations of gas perceptible which, in my opinion, when ignited would raise the dust, then I would say it is a dangerous mine. 409. Do you say, then, that it requires an accumulation of gas to raise the dust ?—lt may only require an accumulation of 2 ft. or 3 ft.- -the exact capacity 1 cannot say. 410. An accumulation of 2 ft. or 3 ft. might possibly cause an explosion ?- I think, under certain conditions even 2 ft. or 3 ft., if ignited in a confined space, of pure methane mixed with oxygen, from 18 ft. of air, might create a disastrous explosion. 411. Then, a mine containing 2 ft. or 3 ft. of pure methane in one confined space would be classed as dangerous ? —lf it occurred in this mine. 412. Or in any mine with similar coal ? — Under the same conditions as Taupiri, yes. 413. How long would it take to exude 2 ft. or 3 ft. of gas from a bleed ? may get the slightest emission or a huge volume. 414. It might be an outburst or a bleed ?- An outburst or a breaking into a magazine of gas. It depends on the size of the cavity containing gas. 415. But 2 ft. or 3 ft. is a small quantity. You have told us that in all coal-mines there is gasthat you cannot get a mine without it ?- In all mines there is gas given off, perhaps not perceptible except under the most careful analysis. 416. Would you consider a mine which generated 2 ft. of gas in one bleed in a few days an unsafe mine ?—No, but if I found 2 cubic feet of pure firedamp in the roof in a confined space where there was inflammable dust I would say it was dangerous. 417. This point has not been brought out very distinctly before. When you referred to gas being present in dangerous quantities you meant quantities of 2 ft. or over ?- In this dusty mine, yes. If the mine-gas is sufficient in quantity to raise the dust when ignited and throw a flame into that dust it is a dangerous mine. 418. If a mine generates 2 ft. of gas in one place you consider it dangerous ? -I have said it three times —under certain conditions which I have already specified. 419. Would 2 ft. of gas remain stationary ?—lt has been suggested that gas remains stationary, is that so ?— No, it does not remain stationary. The molecules of all gases are constantly moving." 420. You cannot tell us what gas is ? Cannot you give us a short description of what it is ?— No, I am unable to answer unless you state what gas you refer to. 421. Do you know how to answer'? What is gas in general ? Can you not give us a popular and short description of what gas is ?—I would not attempt it unless you specify the name of the gas. 422. I will ask if you agree with this definition of it. I have a book here which says that gas consists of a number of rapidly moving particles :do you agree with that ? Yes, and the rate of diffusion of all gases varies inversely as the square root of their specific gravity or density. 423. Do you agree with the statement that gas can remain stationary ?-- -Gas may lodge in the roof. There is diffusion taking place, but there is also perhaps a continuous admission of more gas, so that the quantity diffused might not be so great as the further quantity admitted. 424. There is a constant tendency to diffuse ?— Yes. If a fixed quantity of gas is not increased it will gradually be diffused and become mixed with the atmosphere. 425. Is it not true that a large quantity of gas is really safer than a small quantity, so long as it is not mixed with oxygen ? It is true that it will not explode if over 16 per cent., but if it is between 5-6 per cent, and 16 per cent, it will explode ; about 10 per cent, it is the most explosive mixture. 426. Do you know of any gas-explosions in mines which have happened where there was a strong current of air at the time ? No, but a mine may be well ventilated in one place and ill ventilated in another. 427. Do you know that explosions have occurred where there was no gas at all, and where there was a splendid current ? Yes, a blown-out shot may project the flame into the dust, and if it were inflammable an explosion would occur. 428. T am not referring to dust-explosions,, but to gas-explosions ?— You cannot often dissociate the two things in mines. 429. Have you read about the explosion at Silkstone \ —l do not know the details of that disaster. 430. I think there was 40,000 cubic feet of air rushing past, but the explosion was so violent that the flames reached 120 ft. above the shaft-head ? —What was the contents of the air rushing past ? 431. It was pure air ? Was that stated in the report ? 432. One writer on the subject says : " The more active the ventilation sometimes the more coaldust will find its way into the returns, and therefore render the conditions more dangerous." So that ventilation is not a complete preventive ?■ —No, you want intelligent management and so on. 433. In the case of the Silkstone explosion to which I referred there was from 40,000 to 50,000 cubic feet of air passing along the road which was the main intake. There were three shots fired. From the positions of the men it was believed that these were not fired simultaneously. Shot-firing
(J.—l4
108
F. REED
in the main road was common ? —It should never be allowed ;itis a very dangerous practice in a dusty mine. 434. In that case the author saysjthatjfrom 40,000 t0J50,000 cubic passing 'along the road, but, notwithstanding jthat, ?—lt was probably the result of a blown-out shot. No mine-manager of a shot The quantity of air passing does not effect blown-out shots and coaldust. 435. Do you agree with the statement which —-thatjwhenever an explosion of firedamp occurs a great pressure proceeds in every direction from the point of origin ?— I say that at the point of origin all explosions exert an equal force in every direction, but take effect along the line of least resistance. 436. I think that mining men classify leakages of gas into thosejfroin a blower andjthose from an outburst ?—There is also the normal emission from the face. That makes three classes. 437. But for practical purposes, in order that we may understand the position there are normal emissions, the blower, and the outburst ?—That is so. 438. And these may vary in intensity as between one another ?—Yes. 439. You told us about the large quantity of gas you found after the explosion Jinjßalph's Mine]? —Yes. 440. Do you suggest that immediately prior to the explosion there was a very large quantity of gas there ?—Yes, when Martin ignited it, I believe that there was 68,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture above his head. 441. That was over 56 per cent. ?—Yes. 442. Have you investigated it to see whether it came from a blower outburst ?—1 have investigated as well as I could. I have no indication that it was from an outburst, and as regards a blower it is problematical. Redmayne states that tapping a blower is like driving a pick into a gas main in a street. In the North of England they have had blowers for forty years, sometimes of an enormous magnitude. We cannot yet prove whether it was a blower or not. If it ceases shortly I would not classify it as a blower. It is not proved to be a blower, and it is not an emission from the face of coal. 443.'D0 you suggest that this gas was collected in a reservoir ?—Not in a reservoir. 444. In a cavity? —It was collected in the coal-seams, and fissures, and bedding planes of the strata, communicating perhaps a long distance away. The stratum is broken by a fall, perhaps, and liberates the gas. That is my theory of the cause of this explosion. 445. You consider that the gas was not concentrated in a reservoir, but distributed among the coal-seams ?—We have no evidence of any cavity. 446. Your theory is that the gas which caused this explosion was not concentrated but was distributed among the coal and strata, and that some portion of this strata was tapped and thus allowed the gas to exude into the mine ?—That is my opinion. 447. Then it is quite clear that it was not an outburst ?—I cannot tell if there are cavities there, but to the best of my knowledge there are none. 448. Is not an outburst of gas classified as a great and sudden diffusion in the mine ? You told us you had investigated the place, and that there is no outburst as ordinarily understood ?—Absolutely none. 449. There is no evidence of a blower ?—There is no complete evidence of gas in that form. 450. There is no complete evidence that it was a blower ?—There is partial evidence, but 1 would not place a great deal of reliance on it. 451. What is the nature of the evidence ?—That the emission has not been normal directly from the coal-seams. 452. That is evidence that it was a blower ?—1 am not going to say that. The evidence is incomplete and unsatisfactory. 453. Do not blowers frequently occur very suddenly ?—Yes, J think they generally do and are generally continuous for a considerable time. 454. Then if this portion of the mine from which this gas was exuding was inspected and reported safe three days before the catastrophe, the blower must have burst out during the three days ?—lt depends upon the inspection. If the place was inspected efficiently three days before, there must have been a great emission of gas during those three days. 455. Is there any one word you can suggest which we may use to describe this ?—lt is at present simply an emission of gas. The quantity I estimated was 68,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture. If the place had been efficiently inspected three days before, then that quantity must have accumulated in those three days. 456. I take it that that 68,000 ft. was not methane, it was gas mixture ?—Yes. 457. When it exudes it is pure ?—Not exactly. 458. Well, comparatively ?—Yes. There might be 6,800 ft. of methane, that is 10 per cent. 459. It would require less time than would be indicated by your figures ?—Yes. 460. That gaseous mixture does not exude from the strata ?—No. 461. You spoke of 68,000 cubic feet of gas ?— Nongaseous mixture. Of course the 68,000 cubic feet does not all exude ; it is only the 6,800 ft. of methane which exudes. 462. Might not 6,000-odd feet of gas become emitted in a very short time ?—lt depends upon the circumstances. 463. It all depends upon the pressure behind the gas ?—Yes, also the barometric pressure. 464. And you say that the exudation is not ceasing ?—Well, it is now small in comparison ;it is being dealt with by ventilation. 465. Would that not prove that, at all events, it was abnormal ?—Yes, to a certain extent.
F. REED
109
a—l 4
466. Have you looked for any cavity from which it is exuding ?—No, we could not get there We oould tell the general position, but there is a hugh fall. 467. But the air is getting better and better ?—They have put brattice up and are carrying in an air-current, jj 468. The ventilation is removing the gas, and the gas is not being replaced by a further supply ? —I do not think, to any extent, but we have no means yet of telling. 469. Later on they will be able to say with greater accuracy if there is a cavity or places from which the gas exuded ?—-When it is possible to clear away the gas the source of it will no doubt be found in the course of an examination. 470. Do you remember the New Oaks explosion ?—No, I have only heard of it. 471. The work I have here says that in connection with this explosion 10,000 ft. of fresh air per minute was passing through at the time of the explosion ? —lf the explosion was caused by a blownout shot it would not matter how much air was passing ; indeed, the air would probably make matters worse. 472. Can I put it this way : that it is practically immaterial what ventilation is present ?—ln a dusty mine the air does not matter a bit where an explosion is started by a blown-out shot. As I said before, it only aggravates matters. 473. The explosion in the New Oaks Pit commenced in the rise longwall workings, according to Pamely, and these workings were ventilated by a current of 10,000 cubic feet per minute; but it does not say whether the air was passing along near where these outbursts took place ?—There were probably gas reservoirs present, and these no doubt caused sudden outbursts. 474. Pamely goes on to say that the returns became so loaded that Mueseler lamps at the bottom of the upcast were extinguished in a current of 140,000 cubic feet per minute ?—That would assist the explosion. If there had been no air there would have been no explosion, for such enormous outbursts to become explosive much oxygen is necessary. 475. May I put it this way : that it is entirely immaterial how much fresh air is pumped into the mine, if a sudden outburst of gas occurs, there is bound to be an explosion ? —No ; if it is an outburst of gas, and there is a certain amount of oxygen present, sufficient to bring the mixture to an explosive state, an explosion would occur after ignition; but if there is an enormous amount of air, sufficient to dilute the gas below explosive proportions, there will be no explosion. There will be no explosion if there is an adequate amount of ventilation. 476. Is it material how much fresh air is pumped into the mine ? —lf there is a sudden emission of gas, and it is ignited, will not an explosion take place ?—I say that if there is a sudden emission of gas it is the quantity of air entering the mine which will very materially affect the result. If there is a sufficient quantity of air to dilute the inflammable noxious gas no explosion will occur. 477. Tell me what quantity of air is sufficient to prevent an explosion by sudden outburst of gas ? —lt all depends upon the quantity of gas also, the quantity of air present, the coaldust present, and what lights are used. 478. Does it matter what ignites the gas so long as it is ignited—say there is a naked light at the point of ignition ?—No, it does not matter. 479. We know you have proved conclusively that a very small quantity of gas will begin an explosion. That is conceded by all ? —Yes. 480. 1 am now seeking to get your full meaning of your evidence in relation to this gas matter. I am citing cases of other mining disasters, and I suggest that it was immaterial what quantity of pure air was going into the mine, because the explosion was overpowering ?—Two things were absolutely material for a firedamp explosion —a large volume of gas and an insufficient quantity of ventilation to adequately dilute that gas. 481. You cannot answer the question as to the quantity of gas and the quantity of air necessary to dilute it ? —Not without further particulars from you. 482. I think the author means that the fresh air will not sufficiently rapidly mix with the gas under those circumstances ?—I really do not know what you mean. 483. Would you agree with that I —l am afraid you are trying to assume an involved case. 484. If there is a sudden outburst of gas, or from a large blower, would it matter very much bow much fresh air was introduced ? —Certainly, because you must get within certain proportions in order to create an explosion at all—between 5"6 per cent, and 16 per cent. 485. We may assume there was enough oxygen to cause an explosion ? —lf there is enough oxygen to make it inflammable, there must be an explosion if a flame is applied. 486. Irrespective of the ventilation ?—The mixture will start an explosion. If the inrush of gas and the air present maintains about the same proportions, you are going to have a great explosion. You cannot answer these questions as to whether explosions will take place and what will happen unless you know whether the proportions of gas and air are maintained and if fine coaldust is present. 487. A mine may be well ventilated, and yet disastrous explosions may occur from blowers or outbursts ? —lf the blowers are of sufficient magnitude to vitiate the airways under such conditions, why have naked lights ? 488. Pamely says, as you did, that you could not class this as a blower ; but it might have come from remote strata ?—From coal-seams and the adjacent strata, yes. 489. Pamely continues as follows : " Under certain conditions of roof, and where the roof yields firedamp freely, if may be that spaces exist, out of sight yet communicating with the air of the mine through cracks. These spaces being filled with an explosive mixture might form a train of fire, and thus ignite an accumulation of gas at a considerable distance. The condition most -favourable for this would be where the roof for a few feet immediately above the coal subsided gradually upon the coal as the face advanced ; yet the next stratum above, consisting of hard rock several feet in thickness, only
C—l 4
110
F. REED
subsided at intervals of some weeks for a certain distance back from the face. Thus, a cavity for gas would be formed, which might extend for hundreds of yards following the line of faces. That this is so is frequently shown by abnormal quantities of gas coming off when a sudden weighting of a strong upper roof occurs, while at other times no gas can be detected. For weeks the gas filling this hidden space may remain comparatively pure ; but sooner or later some communications with the atmosphere of the mine will be affected, and will thus lead to the formation of a highly explosive mixture, mechanically, as well as by changes in pressure and by diffusion. A train may be thus prepared and lie ready in waiting throughout a network of crevices and fractures communicating with a distant place containing a body of gas which may have escaped detection. It is thus conceivable that if an explosion fires this train, the flame may be carried along until it reaches the distant gas, when it would set up a second full explosion, which would then run its course independently but almost simultaneously with the first."—That is not applicable to the present case at Ralph's Mine. 490. Can you suggest any reason why the gas should have suddenly exuded into this place ?— I. have an opinion that it was released by the fall. 491. But did not the gas cause the fall, or was the fall caused by some other means ?—1 have no evidence upon that point. 192. Do you say that the fall and the coming-away of portion of the material from the cavity caused the exudation of gas ?—lt possibly intersected a fissure which communicated with gas through a continuation of bedding planes or cracks in the superincumbent rocks above the coal, and perhaps in the coal-seam itself. Possibly the upper portion of the coal-seam contains a greater proportion of gas than the lower portion. 1 think that may safely be assumed. It is open, hydrous coal. The gas may have worked its way up to the impervious roof, and if you could take a sample of that coal and quickly subject it to analysis, and also a sample from the floor, the roof coal would contain more gas in proportion than the floor coal. I think that the gas which is produced in this mine comes from the upper coal. 493. Do you believe that it would be possible for that fall to have occurred, and the escape of gas, consequent upon the seismic disturbance at White Island, assuming that the eruption was at the same time ?—No, I do not think there is any connection between the two. • 494. But siesmic disturbances do liberate gas ?—lf there are fissures and cavities containing gas in the vicinity. 495. Are such cases not referred to in the text-book ?—I have never heard of them. 496. One author whom I have read on the subject says that earthquakes accompanied by earth motions may change the position of gas fissures in the earth's crust I —l have no knowledge of anything of the kind. 1 have no doubt that if in Rotorua there were magazines containing gas alongside volcanic or thermal activity gas would be. liberated, but as for saying that this explosion was due to the White Island eruption that is too far-fetched. 497. What is the distance ?—About two hundred miles, I should think. 498. I want to get at what is approximately the force of the explosion caused by an ignition of gas such as this. I understand that 1 cubic foot of gas is equal to 13 horse-power ?—I cannot determine that offhand. 499. Is it not your business to know that ?—Do you think I am an encyclopedia ? 500. Do you know how much flame 1 cubic foot of gas would generate ?—No, I do not know what flame a cubic foot of gas would generate ; it would depend upon the proportions of gas, also the temperature. 501. Firedamp \- Do you mean the length of the flame ? 502. The volume of flame. Take a cubic foot of firedamp of explosive mixture ; what would be the cubic contents of the flame ?—That is a matter of experiment, and I would not attempt to guess it here, especially upon the inadequate information you supply. 503. Do you think it would lead us to something if we knew ?- -You must start upon the percentage of methane which exploded, and state how much oxygen there is present, also if other gases are present. 504. Let us assume the average ?—This explosion was increased by the coaldust, which was a very important factor. You are asking a question which no man could answer offhand. 505. I suggest that the volume is as 1 to 21—that 1 cubic foot of gas will generate 2J cubic feet of flame ?—I do not deny that under certain conditions, but you stated no conditions. 506. Do you not think if that was so you could approximately calculate the quantity of gas if you knew the quantity of flame ?— But there is the coaldust to be taken into account. 507. Then you do not consider you could calculate it approximately ?—No, because the coaldust took control after the ignition. That is another impossible question you gave me to answer. 508. You stated yesterday that the explosives used in these mines did not conform to the standard adopted in England ?- I said nothing of the kind. What I said was, that the explosives used in these mines were not the permitted explosives on the English Home Office list. You are using dangerous explosives here, after you have been ordered by the Inspector of Mines not to use them. I mean at the Extended Mine. Ten days ago your company was ordered to use only such explosives as are on the Home Office permitted lists, and you are now breaking the law by using flame-producing explosives. That order covered both mines. The company is working the same seam under the same conditions in both mines, and there have been ignitions of gas in the Taupiri Extended as well as at Ralph's Mine. When the order was given by the Inspector that the company was to use only permitted explosives it covered both mines. 509. The Chairman.] But we are only into the explosion at Ralph's Mine ?—But the order for safety-lamps applied to both, as did that concerning permitted explosives. 510. Mr. Napier.] Do you not know that there is a barrier of coal between the two mines 2 chains in thickness ? —That is only 44 yards—not as far as from here to across the street.
111
a—l 4
F. REED
511. You said there are only 44 yards between the two mines. Did you mean by that answer that the barrier between the two mines is quite thin, and that an explosion in one mine might cause an explosion in the other mine I- It would not blow through 44 yards of solid coal, if you have that barrier, as you infer. 512. Is the barrier sufficient between the two mines to make them for all practical purposes two separate mines ?—1 am unable to state, not having measured the barrier. 513. Do you consider that 44 yards of solid coal is sufficient to resist an explosion ?—Yes. 514. Are not the explosives which are used in these mines the explosives which are contemplated by the Coal-mines Act ?—Which Coal-mines Act ? 515. There is only one ?—You refer to the obsolete Coal-mines Act at present in force. 516. I am referring to what is the present law ?—For perhaps a few hours more. 517. I said the Coal-mines Act for 1908. There are one or two amendments, but that is the principal Act according to the interpretation clause. Are the explosives used in these mines the explosives contemplated by the existing Act and the special rules under it ?—The existing Act does not specify what class of explosives shall be used in a mine, but section 56 makes provision by which the Inspector of Mines may forbid the use of dangerous explosives such as your company is now using in the Taupiri Mine from being continued. 518. Do you say that the explosives which are now being used in this mine are not contemplated by the Act ? — The Act does not define which explosives are safe and which are dangerous, but it gives the Inspector power to object to dangerous practices. And with a view to safety the Inspector notified your company about ten days ago not to use these dangerous explosives, and you are continuing to do so in defiance of his order, notwithstanding that the Commission is sitting here. 519. Does the Act permit the use of the explosives now being used ?—I am not a lawyer. The Act does not specify the names of the explosives. 520. You are a responsible officer of the Department, its Inspecting Engineer ; have you ever had occasion to consider whether the Coal-mines Act permitted the use of explosives now Leing used ? -Directly, no. The Boyal Commission on Mines, 1911, of which ! was a member, considered this matter and found that there was no direct provision in regard to any special class of explosives. Consequently they recommended those explosives on the English Home Office permitted list, but as nothing exists in the Act specifying which explosives shall be used we can only apply section 56 to the case, in my opinion. 520 a. Do you agree with the report of the Royal Commission that there are practically no explosives prohibited by the Act ? '—The Act does not directly recommend or prohibit. 521. Have you ever had occasion to consider section 40 of the Act ?— Yes, I have had a great deal to do with section 40. 522. You know its provisions ?—Yes, very well. 523. Look at subsection (2) of section 40. It says, " The use of gunpowder or other explosives or inflammable substance in a coal-mine shall be subject to the restrictions and provisions following " ?— Yes. 524. Do you believe that that means that these explosives can be used subject to the conditions ? -Those are only some of the conditions. 525. Have you always understood that that gives power to "use these explosives subject to the conditions ?—No, I have not. There are- other provisions which common-sense dictates, and which are not enumerated there. 526. Then you do not consider that explosives of the kind mentioned in subsection (2) may be used according to the conditions laid down in the Act ?—The Act is good as far as it goes, but it does not detail or specify many dangerous uses of explosives. 527. Then do you contend that there are other provisions not set out in the Act which must be observed before these explosives can be used ?- I do. Under section 56 we have power to enforce them as regards flameless or permitted explosives. 528. Have you or the Department ever ordered any other conditions to be observed in the use of explosives in the mine, other than those specified in section 40?—] have no record. Ask the Inspector of Mines who is the responsible officer. 529. You have no knowledge of it ?- I have no knowledge of it. 530. Have you ever recommended to the Department the necessity of adopting other conditions for the use of explosives than set forth in section 40 ?—Certainly, our Royal Commission recommended it. 531. Did you? I was a member of the Commission. I did recommend it as a member, and signed the report. 532. May I say that except as a member of the Royal Commission you have not recommended them ? —No, I recommended them for another colliery Kaitangata, and for Ralph's Colliery in my recent letters. 533. Other conditions ? Permitted explosives. 534. Then you did not recommend the use of any other explosives than those which were in use at this colliery ? —I also conferred with Mr. Bennie, and advised him privately—not officially—to have safety explosives introduced here. That was my private advice, and he followed it. 535. Why did you not officially place on record your belief that the safety of the mine required conditions to be observed beyond those in section 40 ? —The accident happened only three weeks ago, but in my letters to the Under-Secretary several months ago—namely, on the 29th July —I recommended to him that only nameless explosives should be used at Ralph's Mine. 536. You only recommended the use of permitted explosives three weeks ago ?- No. you are mistaking my position —I ani not the Inspector of Mines, to directly address the manager.
0.—14.
112
[f. reed.
537. I am speaking to you ?—I have reported six times that your mine was highly dangerous, and mentioned the necessity for permitted explosives, and the Inspector of Mines would be aware of the condition.; he would carry out his duty, no doubt, to the best of his ability. 538. I assume that you, believing the mine to be dangerous, desired to remove those dangerous conditions ?— With all the power that I had. 539. And upon that assumption did you ever officially report that conditions other than those contained in the Act should be observed regarding the explosives used ?— Yes, read my letters, and you will see that I say, " The manager should be forced to become aware of his responsibility," and so on. 540. What has his responsibility to do with explosives ?—I referred to his responsibility all round in connection with the matter, 541. Do you understand my question ?—This is my letter to the Under-Secretary dated the 27th June in regard to the matter : " The Inspector of Mines, Mr. Bennie, in his monthly report hereunder for May reports that firedamp and fine coaldust exist at the Taupiri coal-mines. These are. the conditions which occasion colliery disasters. Ignitions of gas causing men to be burnt have been reported from these mines lately. The Royal Commission on Mines, 1911, recommended amendments and additions to our Coal-mines Act to provide for better ventilation, laying coaldust, safety explosives, safety-lamp regulations, &c.; our Act is generally obsolete, being based on a British Act long since repealed. If a disaster occurs as a result of an inadequate law the Inspection Branch of the Department cannot be held responsible; the Brunner and Kaitangata disasters cost a hundred lives. It is the unexpected that happens." That is my answer to your question, in addition to my letter of the 29th July to the Under-Secretary. 542.. There you are referring to the provisions of the Act, and you state that the Royal Commission reported on the subject. Now, did you at any time suggest that conditions should be imposed under the powers of the existing Act as far as the use of explosives in this mine was concerned ?- -I have made adequate representations right through in connection with this mine, as you will see by my letters. f have done more than my duty in drawing attention to the dangers of this mine, including the use of unpermitted explosives. 543. That is, generally ?—I have gone into detail. 544. Did not you write to the Under-Secretary requesting that the Inspector of Mines be instructed to insist upon the use of safety-lamps and permitted explosives in these mines ? Yes, on the 29th July, in the letter which has already been read. 545. Then, you did believe that you had power under the existing law to compel the use of permitted explosives ?—I; no, lam the Inspecting Engineer, and have no power. I think still that under section 56 the Inspector has not the power to enforce it without arbitration. 546. You have the power to order the use of such explosives and safety-lamps, and if the order is not complied with the matter may be submitted to arbitration; did you contemplate exercising that power ? ■— As Inspecting Engineer I had no power to do such a thing, and I did not do it. 547. At the present time, with the exception of Kaitangata, are not all the mines in New Zealand using the same kind of explosives as are being used here ? —Kaitangata and those at Huntly are the only gaseous mines, to any extent, _that I know of. 548. My question was : At the present time, with the exception of Kaitangata, are not all the coal-mines in New Zealand using the same kind of explosives as are being used here ?- No, they are not all using the same kind of explosives. 549. The same kind as Taupiri ? Is any mine except Kaitangata using safety explosives ? —] do not think Kaitangata is using safety explosives. 550. You have ordered that such explosives be used in Kaitangata ?—I have recommended it. 551. And your recommendation has not been complied with ? —lt has been made only recently —since this disaster. 552. Are any of the ooal-mines in New Zealand using these permitted explosives ?— -Not to my knowledge. 553. Do you consider it dangerous for mines to use explosives other than English permitted explosives ?—Yes, where gas exists, or where there is inflammable coaldust present. I agree with the English Act, which enforces the use of permitted explosives. 554. And I suppose that coaldust to a greater or less extent exists in all the coal-mines in New Zealand ?—No, not dangerous coaldust. 555. I did not say " dangerous " ? —I did not say you did. 556. Have you ever attempted, so far as explosives are concerned, to exercise the powers conferred by section 56 ? I will read it to you :"If in any respect (which is not provided against by any express provision of this Act, or by any Special Rule) any Inspector finds any mine, or any part thereof, or any matter, thing, or practice in or connected with any such mine, to be dangerous or defective, so as, in his opinion, to threaten or tend to the bodily injury of any persons, such Inspector may give notice in writing thereof to the owner or agent of the mine, and shall state in such notice the particulars in which he considers such mine or any part thereof, or any matter, thing, or practice, to be dangerous or defective, and require the same to be remedied; and unless the same be forthwith remedied the Inspector shall also report the same to the Minister." Has any notice been given prior to this disaster to any mine in New Zealand to discontinue the use of explosives except the English permitted explosives '---Notice given by whom ? 557. By the Department? —We have several responsible Inspectors; I cannot state everything they are doing. 558. You are the editor of the reports of the Inspectors, and though you are responsible for the Department's report to Parliament you caunot say whether any such notice has been served upon any
F. REED. 1
113
C—l 4.
other company in New Zealand ?—I do not remember any notice being given regarding permitted explosives before this disaster. 559. In the absence of any such notice from the authority responsible for the administration of the law, would any mine-owner be justified in continuing to use explosives other than those on the permitted list ?—Yes, until he was notified by the Inspector to discontinue them. ■ 560. And if a mine-owner objected to conform to such a notice you are aware that under section 57 the matter has to be referred to arbitration ?—Yes, that is so. 561. And no notice was ever given, according to you ?- Mr. Bennie gave your company notice. 562. When ?— About ten days ago. 563. You tell us that until this disaster no notice was given in New Zealand under section 56, so far as explosives are concerned ?—During the past eight years, to my recollection, no. 564. And therefore it follows that there was no arbitration under section 57 ?- -Not on explosives. 565. I think you said yesterday, in answer to Mr. Wilford, that you had no power as Inspecting Engineer to enter a mine, and that in order to get the legal power you had to be appointed an Inspector of Mines without a district ?—That is so. 566. Are you aware that under the Coal-mines Act, 1908, the Inspecting Engineer of Mines has power to enter any coal-mine ?—lt would be 1907, when I was appointed and gazetted. 567. The Gazette has nothing to do with the law. You told us that in order to get the power to enter any mine you, as Inspecting Engineer, had to be gazetted an Inspector of Mines without a district ?—That is correct. 568. And, that being so, the Department gazetted you ?— Yes, and the Act was passed the year afterwards. 569. The 1908 Act was a consolidating Act ?-— Yes. 570. Do you suggest that this section was not in the Act previous to 1908 ?— I believe that it was not. Ido not remember all the dates of these amending Acts, but I will say that I was gazetted an Inspector of Mines to give me authority to enter any mine. I believe that section was not on the statute-book then. 571. Then, for the last seven years, irrespective of your office as Inspector of Mines without a district, you had ample power as Inspecting Engineer, to visit any mine ?■ -For my duties as Inspecting Engineer, but not in the capacity of Inspector of Mines of a district. 572. Section 65 of the Act says : " The Inspecting Engineer or any other officer of the Mines Department duly authorized in writing by the Minister may enter and inspect any mine " ?—But section 23 states that an Inspector of Mines shall have a district. . 573. If you were authorized by the Minister you could go into any mine in any district in the Dominion ? —Suppose I went to a mine and the manager peremptorily refused me admission, it would be awkward if I had to stand about the mouth of the mine until I received a letter or a telegram from the Minister authorizing me to enter the mine. 574. Could you not get a note from the Minister and keep it in your pocket for general use ?— Refusal is an unusual thing. 575. Should you not take care to fortify yourself with all proper authority ?—The only question I have ever heard raised was at Kaitangata. 576. You told us yesterday that these what you termed explosions of gas in this mine prior to the accident were wilfully concealed by these deceitful people who control these mines. Do you then contend that those emissions of gas ought to have been reported under section 62? —Yes, I do so. Willcox, who was burned, was away for three weeks ; that was a serious accident, and should have been reported. 577. Do you consider that the same applies to Kelly's case ? — Yes. 578. To Conn's case ?— Yes. 579. They should have been reported under section 62 ?—Yes. 580. Wherever there is an emission of gas at the face, or in a working-place, and the gas ignites and a man burns his finger, you would say that it was a case that ought to be reported under section 62, even where no explosion in the proper sense of the term follows ? —lf a man only burns his finger I do not consider that a very serious thing, but coupled with the fact that it was an ignition of gas likely to create a holocaust in the mine, that-should render it sufficiently important to warrant it being reported. 581. Do you say that the ignition of a small quantity of gas which would be sufficient only to burn a man's finger would be likely to create a holocaust in a mine ?—lt might, because that man's finger might be just at the extremity of the explosion. This is an extreme question, and I can only give you an extreme answer. It is possible. 582. Then, assuming that your answer is correct, you do not agree with the statement that a violent concussion is necessary, in addition to an intense flame, to cause an explosion ?— You are mixing up two things. First of all, it is possible to cause a great explosion without a concussion—that is, a pure gas and air explosion. The concussion is only necessary for a dust and gas explosion.. 583. When you were referring to a holocaust you referred to a gas-explosion alone ? —Your question was put to me in such a form that you excluded coaldust, and I considered it from the gas point alone. If it is gas alone, there is no need for a concussion. 584. Then a holocaust would take place under given circumstances without concussion ?—Yes, if there was no coaldust present and gas is present in sufficient quantity. 585. If there was coaldust present the probability of a holocaust would be greatly increased ? — Yes, of course. 586. You are conversant with the provisions of section 52 of the Coal-mines Act [witness reads section referred to]. Are you still of opinion that ignitions of gas in connection with which men may
15—C. 14.
C—l 4.
114
If. REED.
be slightly burned ought to be reported under that section ?—Yes, if a person is burned, necessitating his absence from work for two or three weeks, I say it is a serious injury, and it ought to be reported to the Minister. 587. The Chairman.] How can a manager know how long a man is going to be off work when he is first injured ?—What appears to be a minor accident may become a serious injury. 588. Should the report be sent in three weeks later ?—No, sir, at once. 589. So that the Inspector may come and see the place immediately after the accident ?—Yes, and to enable remedies to be taken, if necessary. 590. Mr. Napier.] It may be that the Inspector is travelling at the time ?—Nevertheless a notification of such accident should be sent to his office, even if it was only a week that the man was off work. 591. I am dealing with section 62. You read it, and you adhere to your statement that you believe accidents of the kind referred to, where those men were burnt, should have been reported as serious accidents under that section ?--I call them serious injuries, not minor ones. 592. Would you tell us how long a man would require to be away from his work as the result of a burn in order to justify you in reporting under section 62 ?- You are asking me as if I were a minemanager. If so, I would report it by telegram at once, even if it were only a mild case of burning. 593. Even if the man had not to stay away from his work ?—I would notify it at once, as the conditions were serious. 594. Irrespective of the nature of the burn ? —Absolutely. 595. Subsection (5) of section 62 says that " the part of the mine where the accident occurred shall not be interfered with until inspected by the Inspector, or by some other person appointed for the purpose by the Minister, or by the Coroner's jury, unless with the view of saving life or preventing further injuries." Does not that indicate that the injury contemplated by the section is a very serious injury ? —No, not a very serious injury. 596. Then when a slight burn is sustained, and the man is not off work any time, you believe that the mine should be immediately sealed up and work stopped ? —I did not say anything of the kind, and I do not believe it. 597. Do you suggest that the part of the mine where the injury happened, however slight, should be closed up and work discontinued ? —I say if an ignition of gas occurs in a part of a mine, by which a man is burned, the Inspector should be immediately notified. 598. However slight the burn or ignition may be ? —Yes. 599. And the work stopped ? —lt is only one working-place, perhaps. 600. And you think the part of the mine where the burn occurs should be closed up until the Inspector comes, and work stopped ? —I said that place should be discontinued until the Inspector saw it. 601. Irrespective of the gas emitted ? —Yes. The Inspector should be notified immediately, also the Department, because most serious conditions may exist. 602. Wherever an explosion of gas occurs, however slight, the most dangerous conditions exist ?— Yes ; when it becomes ignited in a dusty mine. 603. Do not the conditions exist prior to the ignition ?—Some of the conditions do. 604. It only wants ignition ? —lt is dangerous. 605. Then you say that it was unnecessary and unmeaning for the Legislature to put the word " serious " before the word " injury "in section 62 ?—I say that the wording is bad. I would make it so that any accident by which men are burned by gas should be notified to the Inspector. 606. And you are of opinion that all the sections which follow should be amended accordingly ?- Yes, certainly. 607. Would you consider that the manager was doing something wrong if he took a different view from you as to the meaning of that section, so far as the extent of the injury was concerned ?—lf he were a certificated manager, and did not report it, then I would consider him failing in his duty and concealing something. 608. Irrespective of the present wording of the Act ? —Absolutely, because we are not bound by the words of an obsolete statute where human life is concerned. lam referring to the manager —the manager is not bound by the words of an obsolete statute where human life is concerned. 609. He is bound by what ? —By his training, and his conscience, and his duty. 610. We are trying to find out what is his duty, and I am suggesting it is his duty to carry out the statute ?—He owes something to humanity and the men who are employed under him. 611. Then the statute has no regard for humanity ? —Who said that ? I say the statute has regard for humanity ; but I do not think it has a complete or perfect regard. 612. You consider that the manager should set up his own standard of his duty outside the Act ?— Not the standard of his duty. He must not conceal anything. The intention of Parliament is for managers to act in the interest of human life ; but it is impossible for Parliament always to put those words down in black and white. 613. If it is not down in black and white, how is a manager to know what is the intention of Parliament ?—I am not speaking of the manager determining the intention of Parliament, but referring to the necessity for him to use his discretion and prudence in connection with these matters. 614. But the Department has not told him to do anything except what is in the Act ?—No, I do not think the Department has told him, because they have not power to do so. 615. Do you not believe that the public and the miners employed in these mines have to be told, assuming that some protection was afforded to the miners by the activities of the Mines Department ? — I do not know what they have assumed. 616. Did it ever occur to you as a responsible officer of the Department —or an irresponsible one — that the Department is responsible for the safety of coal-mines ?—The responsibility of seeing the
F. REED.!
115
C—l 4.
Act carried out has been placed upon the Inspector of Mines for the district: he is the statutory officer. 617. The Under-Seeretary is the next superior officer ; may I take it that he has no responsibility ? —Not under the Act. 618. And the Minister above him : has he any responsibility ? —Not as far as the safety of life is concerned. 619. Then, does it follow from what you have said that the Inspector of Mines, and he alone, is responsible for human life in coal-mines ?—No ; the management is responsible for human life ; the Inspector for seeing that the Act is observed. 620. You complained yesterday of the inadequacy of the existing law ?—I have done so for the last two or three years. 621. Before the Commission you have complained of the inadequacy of the existing law to render a mine less dangerous ?—Yes, in many respects. 622. Are you aware of the provisions of section 58, which reads as follows : Where in the opinion of the Inspector a mine or any part thereof is found to be exceptionally dangerous, he may require the owner or agent to withdraw the workmen from such mine or dangerous part thereof, excepting such workmen as are required to effect the necessary work to put the mine in safe condition ; and mining operations shall not be resumed until the mine or dangerous part thereof is made safe to the satisfaction of the Inspector " ?—I know that section well. 623. I think you told us that you considered this mine was exceptionally dangerous ?—I reported six or seven times to that effect before the explosion. 624. Did you suggest or recommend at any time that the power under section 58 should be exercised ? —I was never asked. I reported to the Government that the mine was dangerous. 625. Is your answer, " No, because I was never asked " ?—I described the dangers to the Undersecretary, who communicated them to the Minister of Mines. The Inspector was the responsible officer. 626. Did you refer to section 58 in any recommendation or report about this mine ?—I am not in the habit of drawing attention to legal points. In the Wellington office we have solicitors who advise their Departments on such matters. 627. Do you believe that your reports were considered by the head of the Department ?—I am sure that they were seriously considered, because he used to speak to me about them. 628. Then, if no action were taken under section 58, would we be right in assuming that the provisions referred to in that section do not apply ?—No, you would be right in assuming nothing of the eort by the fact that no action was taken. 629. You say that no assumption can be drawn from the acts of parties in the Mines Department ? Which parties ? 630. " Persons," if you like ?—1 do not assume anything from the silence of some persons who have no business to interfere in the matter. 631. Am I not right in assuming that your Under-Secretary is an officer of experience and longservice who has always done his duty ?—Yes. 632. And you made certain reports to him ? —Yes. 633. And you know he discussed them with you ?—Yes. 634. And you say, further, that no deduction can be drawn from the fact that no action was taken under section 58 ?—There was an attempt at an action under another section. 635. lam dealing now with section 58 ?—I do not know what passed through his mind in regard to section 58. 636. But was it discussed ?—No. 637. Do you believe that the power under section 58 could have been exercised in this case ? —lt could have been exercised in this case only by closing the whole property, because the whole of the mine was equally dangerous, in my opinion. 638. And do you not think the power ought to have been exercised, if you are right ? —As matters have eventuated, it would have been wise, of course, to have closed the mine. 639. But I mean, speaking of what happened, after the event ?—I wrote those reports before the event. 640. Do you think that the power under section 58 ought to have been exercised, irrespective of this disaster ? —lf I had been Inspector of Mines it would have been—most assuredly ? 641. You would not consider anything if there was any risk to human beings ?—The price that I put on human life is greater than the purchasing-power of money, and I would no more have considered your company if one man's life had been in peril than I would a snap of the fingers. 642. It was not done ?—That concerns my colleague ; he has his own views and opinions. 643. And you are seeking to blame the existing law ?—I blame the existing law for not enabling us to enforce the use of safety-lamps, and flameless explosives, and those other necessary things. 644. Do you suggest to this Commission that there is not ample power under section 58 at present to close down the mine if the conditions are dangerous ?—But, sir, suppose the company refused to do it —it would go to arbitration. It is necessary to consider this : that if the Inspector closed the whole of the mine, and failed at arbitration, the Government would be let in for damages as on a former occasion regarding Shag Point Colliery. 645. But he would have done his duty, the responsibility being on other persons ?—He formed his opinion to the best of his knowledge and belief. I formed my opinion. Because he has a different opinion to mine, I do not say that he is incompetent. 646. You hold one opinion and the Under-Secretary and the Inspector of Mines hold another ? — 1 do not know what opinion the Under-Secretary holds, but the Inspector holds a different opinion from mine, or he would have been more drastic. That is obvious.
C—l 4
116
F. REED
647. You would know the opinion of the Under-Secretary if you and he discussed these questions ? —You are speaking now of section 58 —if so, I do not think we discussed that section. 648. Did you discuss the dangerous condition of the mine ?—Yes, we discussed the dangerous condition of the mine. 649. And the nature of the powers you possessed ?—The notice re safety-lamps and flameless explosives. • 650. Did not you ever consider or discuss what measures could have been taken ? —We never discussed an)' subject with the exception of the grave dangers in the mine, the introduction of safetylamps, and flameless explosives, and the necessity of passing the Coal-mines Bill. 651. Were you all agreed that you could not do anything under the present Act ?—As far as permitted explosives and safety-lamps were concerned we were' agreed we could enforce nothing. 652. You were not aware of the powers under section 58 ? —Yes, I was aware of them. 653. Was the Under-Secretary aware of them ?—We never discussed that question. 654. The point is that you never initiated the proceedings under the Act, neither you, nor the Under-Secretary, nor the Inspector of Mines ? —lt is not the duty of the Under-Secretary or me. 655. If the responsible officer does not do it, there is no obligation on the Under-Secretary or you to see that it is done ?—No, the stationary officer is responsible. 656. Do you understand, then, that there is no power except Parliament above the Inspector of Mines to control him] or to see that he performs his duties satisfactorily ?—There is a power called the Public Service Commissioner, who, upon complaint being made against an officer for neglect of duty, has power to hold an inquiry into the matter. Apart from that, Ido not not know who legally controls the Inspector of Mines. I speak from experience. I was an Inspector of Mines in Western Australia for several years. 657. Was any complaint ever made to the Public Service Commissioner about Mr. Bennie ? — Never to my knowledge. 658. You knew, of course, in January last that this mine was exceptionally dangerous ? —I formed my opinion from information received before January—l think it was at Christmas. 659. And knowing that it was exceptionally dangerous, did you ever suggest either verbally or privately to Mr. Bennie as to how he should act ?—Yes, I wrote private letters to him. 1 always communicate with him privately and confidentially. 660. Did you tell him that you thought it was his duty to withdraw the workmen from those places where the gas was found '(■ —I did not tell him anything about his duty ; 1 would not do so. 661. Did you ever suggest that it ought to be done ?—I did not. I spoke about the dangers, but 1 did not order him. 662. Did you suggest ?—I remarked to him upon the dangers which were present. I could not order him to do anything. 663. Did you suggest that he should have the men withdrawn ? —I did not —in my private letters. 664. Did you in any public letter ? —I did not address him publicly. 665. Then, either in a public letter, or a private letter, or verbally, did you ever suggest to the Inspector of Mines to withdraw the workmen ?—I did not; it was not my business or duty. 666. Did you ever either write to the Under-Secretary to that effect or suggest it to him in your discussion ?—I did not; it was not my business or duty. 667. Then, does it amount to this : that knowing that there were a large number of men working there under dangerous conditions, and that a holocaust was imminent, and that you had the power ?—I did not have the power. 668. That the power existed : did you ever suggest that the precautions provided by the Act should be taken ? —Yes, I did suggest that all the powers available under the Act should be taken advantage of. 669. That the men should be withdrawn ?—No, it was not my suggestion. 670. You allowed this to go on ? —I did everything in my power to prevent the disaster. 671. Did you ever suggest that the men should be withdrawn ?—lt was not for me to suggest it. My letters drew attention to the danger. 672. You kept pouring contempt upon the Act, though the Department had direct power if they had taken it ? —lt is not my business to suggest the legal procedure which is to be followed. —that is for the solicitors. This section you are referring to is a most drastic one. It means the stoppage of the whole mine, or the withdrawal of the men. If I went out of my way to recommend the stoppage of of the mine I would be exceeding my duty. The responsible officer—the Inspector of Mines—would in the ordinary course report it to the Under-Secretary, who would confer with the solicitor who would advise as to the step to be taken ; but for me to decide on a law-point would be absurd. 673. Do you call the removal of workmen from a dangerous place where gas exuded a law-point '{ —No. 674. Do you say that you do not know what is the construction of section 58 ?— I know, in my own mind. 675. Is not the meaning of section 58, that the workmen may be prohibited from going to certain parts of the mine ? —Yes, if I were the Inspector I should look upon it as so. 676. You have always known it ?—Yes. 677. And you have told us that as far as human life is concerned you would not value all the mines in the world more than a snap of your fingers ?—That is true. 678. And knowing the conditions of the mine, and that men were working there, and that there was power under the Act to prevent men from going to those places, you failed to suggest that the power should be exercised ?—1 did not fail. 679. Did you suggest it ?—lt was not my duty to do it. I did not usurp the functions of other officers.
F. REED
117
(3.—14
680. And yet you have told us that you discussed with the Inspector and the Under-Secretary matters connected with his office ?—With the Inspector in a private conversation and by letter. 681. Did you suggest the withdrawal of the men ?—I have told you that that would be dangerous, and would mean the closing of the mine, and might entail heavy damages against the Government. 682. But there are only a few sections dealing with the preservation of life ? —That is so. 683. And you were very familiar with the sections dealing with the protection of human life ?— Y r es ; I have had a great deal of practice in connection with them. 684. Now, 1 am coming to that letter which Mr. Bennie wrote to the Department, in which he suggested that he should be permitted to initiate a prosecution ? —Yes. 685. Why should Mr. Bennie write to the Department asking for permission to initiate a prosecution if the Department had no control over him ?—Ask Mr. Bennie. 686. Do you know why he wrote ?—lt is the practice. 687. It is not necessary ? —There is no Chief Inspector until the new Bill becomes law, and for years past the Inspectors have addressed the permanent head, the Under-Secretary. 688. Mr. Bennies letter of the 7th August, 1914, asking for permission to institute proceedings was subsequently sent on to you ?- Yes. 689. And you agreed with Mr. Bennie. You minuted the papers to the Under-Secretary as follows : " I recommend that Inspector Bennie consults a reliable solicitor, and if we are considered by him to have a fair chance to secure a conviction proceedings should be taken, and 1 will go North to assist the Inspector "?---Yes, as an expert witness. 690. You see, therefore, that you identify yourself with the Department: you use the expression "we " ? -I think we always use the word " we." It is the custom in the Departments. 691. You see what your minute is. If there was a reasonable chance of .securing a conviction the proceedings were to be instituted ? —Yes. You must remember that that was written on the 11th August. The Coal-mines Bill was in print, and practically on the table of the House. We knew that, even if the lawyer's opinion was against us, we only had to wait a few weeks until the Bill became law, when we would be able to proceed under it. 692. You know that the Under-Secretary instructed Mr. Bennie in your identical words to get the opinion ? —Yes. 693. Mr. Bennie accordingly consulted Mr. Miller, and in due course Mr. Miller gave his opinion ? -Yes. 694. That opinion went to the Department and you read it ?■ Yes, less than , a week before the disaster. That opinion came to me on the afternoon of the 9th -the Wednesday before the explosion. I noted it: '"Noted, 9/9/14." 695. You read the opinion. Did you make any objection or remark that the statement of facts was incorrect or inadequate ? Did you agree with the stateemnt of facts ?- I did not know the facts stated before the disaster. Without verbal comment or addition it is absolutely inadequate upon which to form an opinion. J. think on those written facts the lawyer could have given no other opinion. That letter does not refer to the ignitions, and was in itself absolutely inadequate. 696. Then, knowing that this was a matter of great importance, and as you were very anxious about it, and having read that opinion and seen that the statement of fact was quite inadequate, and might be misleading, you made no remark or comment upon it ? — Look at my instructions. My chief minuted it " For your information." I consequently " Noted" it. When he says "For your perusal," I peruse it; when he says "' For your remarks," I remark upon it. 697. If you noticed a grossly misleading statement or inadequate statement, and that the consequence might have been dangerous to human life, would you make any comment upon it unless asked ?—I was unaware whether the Inspector had given verbal or additional information to the lawyer or not. 698. So, on receiving the opinion, you only put " Noted" upon it?- -I would have exceeded my duty if I had done otherwise. Knowing Mr. Bennie so well, I felt satisfied that he would have supplemented the statement he gave to Mr. Miller with an additional history of the dangerous condition of the mine and the ignitions that has occurred. 699. You have no doubt that the statement was supplemented by Mr. Bennie ?— That was my opinion. 700. Have you had any reason to alter that opinion ? No, the Inspector has said on oath that he has supplemented that statement, and I believe it. 701. It was not unusual, then, for the Department to get a legal opinion with regard to the construction of a section in the Act ?—-No, Mr. Macassey has frequently given them. 702. And did it never occur to you, or to Mr. Blow, to get an opinion as to section 56 ?—As 1 said, it is not my duty to get opinions. Never since I have been in the service have I, as Inspecting Engineer, obtained an opinion directly. 703. Or suggested one should be obtained ? —At times I have done so. 704. I understood you to say that the Department was greatly concerned about this matter. and that Mr. Blow discussed it with you. Did you ever get an opinion from the Crown Law Officers as to what steps could be legally taken under the Act to remove the dangerous conditions I —l did not. 705. Did Mr. Blow ? —I do not know. 706. Now, you said in denouncing the present Act that you considered section 56 could not be exercised in the present case because safety-lamps were referred to in another part of the Act ?—Yes. 707. You came to certain conclusions as to the meaning of section 56 ?- I did. 708. Did you ever suggest that the opinion of the Crown Law Officers, or any other legal advice, should be obtained to see whether you were right ?—You have read my letter already where 1 recommended that an opinion should be obtained.
C—l 4
118
[F. REED.
709. Not about section 56 ? —About the safety-lamps. 710. Do you not know that Mr.|Miller's opinion makes that section ? —That was his business. I believe that is correct. 711. Do you not know that he advises upon an entirely different section with reference to the prosecution ?—Yes, he referred to a special rule. 712. It was not section 56 he was considering ? —But as a lawyer he would not look up only the special rule. 713. Do you think he turned up section 56 ?—I do. 714. Section 56 has nothing to do with the prosecution; that is an entirely different thing ?— It has reference to arbitration. 715. But under section 56 any Inspector may give notice requiring certain things to be done, and if it is objected to the matter goes to arbitration ?—That is so. 716. Was any attempt made to get an opinion from the Crown Law Officers as to whether safetylamps could be ordered under that section, so as to compel the matter to go to arbitration ? -Not to my knowledge. 717. Did you ever suggest that that should be done I —l was not asked for an opinion. 718. And therefore you did not suggest it ? —Yes. 719. Do I understand you correctly that you only differed from Mr. Bennie as to the use of safety-lamps in the mine ?■ —That was the main thing upon which I differed from him. 720. You believe that Mr. Bennie is a conscientious man, and does his work to the best of his ability ?-—I can say more than that. I consider him to be an experienced, and competent, and honourable officer. 721. Then, when he reported that he did not consider the use of safety-lamps necessary, and that their use might be dangerous, did you consider that he was honest in that opinion ? —Yes. 722. Did you disagree with Mr. Bennie as to the condition of the ventilation of the mine prior to the explosion ?—I could not tell what was the condition of the ventilation of the mine prior to the explosion. 723. You do not contradict him ?—No, he was there, and I was not. 724. Would you be prepared, knowing him as you do, to act upon his statements regarding the ventilation ? —lf he said, " I saw certain conditions existing," I would believe him; but I would not believe opinions without verification. I would agree with what he saw, but he may have inadvertently overlooked something. 725. You have told us that owing to the multiplicity of your duties you could not possibly supervise the work of each man if the law requires it ?—No, no man on earth could. 726. Would you be prepared to act upon Mr. Bennies report as to the ventilation or any other matter ?—lt just depends upon what the matter was. I would sooner act upon my own knowledge. 727. But supposing that was impracticable because of your other duties ? —I would not then like to say. I would not trust my professional reputation to any man. I prefer my own opinion. 728. Now, you said that the absence of safety-lamps was the cause of the explosion ?—Yes, it was. A naked light caused the explosion. 729. Therefore, the opinion expressed by Mr. Bennie that safety-lamps were not necessary would, under the conditions existing, be a dangerous opinion to hold ?—I say that it was my opinion that this was a safety-lamp proposition. 730. Here we are concerned with the lives of hundreds of men. Yours was a very strong opinion that the safety of their lives depended upo-n a single matter ? —Mainly upon the question of safetylamps. 731. Mr. Bennies opinion differs radically from yours ?—Yes. 732. Do you not consider, therefore, seeing what the possible consequences would be, that the opinion he held was a dangerous one, from your point of view ? —I do not like to describe his as a dangerous opinion. It was different from mine. 733. But an opinion which was so erroneous on such an important matter would be a dangerous opinion to your mind, would it not ? —I have never used the words " dangerous opinion "in my life regarding a professional colleague. 734. It was a grave matter for the responsible officer to hold in a matter which you thought might involve danger to human life ? —I think that is right. It was a grave situation, and required careful consideration. 735. Did you not think it was your duty, seeing that you and he differed upon this very important point, to suggest that some other authority should be called upon to decide ?—The Under-Seoretary received my opinion, and also that of the Inspector of Mines, and he was the person to exercise his discretion. 736. And his discretion apparently lead him to decide that Mr. Bennie was right ? —I do not know. Read the letter. You have his opinion. 737. I know what he says ?—Then, why ask me ? I believe the Under-Secretary did his duty. 738. So, then, the Under-Secretary did really adjudicate, as it were, between your opinion and Mr. Bennie, upon this question of safety-lamps,,and he did that to the best of his ability ?—Yes. 739. And honestly ? —Every time. 740. When you visited the mine about three years ago, I think it was, did you go into many parts of the mine ? —No ; we made an ordinary examination of the principal parts of the mine, but not a. detailed examination. That would have taken a fortnight. I visited the mine as a member of the Royal Commission. 741. I was referring to you not as a member of the Royal Commission, but as Inspecting Engineer ? On that former occasion I went pretty well up to Taupiri West. I was sent up by Mr. Roderick
F. REED.]
119
C—l 4.
MoKenzie to inspect the connection with Taupiri West. The owners wished to delay it, but the Department wanted to see it carried through at once. I also made inquiries regarding the workmen's inspection. 742. Was not that visit made for the special purpose you mention ? —Yes. 743. And I think you did not visit the other portions of the mine because it was not necessary for the purpose of your report to the Minister ? —I never do anything that is in my opinion unnecessary. 744. Then the visit was a special one for the purpose of inquiring into the connection with Taupiri West ? —Yes, and some complaints by Mr. Fulton and others. 745. Am I not right in saying that, so far as that visit was' concerned, you did not get an opportunity for judging the conditions of the mine ?—You must not confine me to what I saw. There is such a thing as the plan of the mine. I can judge a great deal from that. I had a plan last year and another one recently, and studied them both. My knowledge of the mine is not confined to what I saw on my visit to which you referred. I have the monthly report of the Inspector to refer to, which I always read carefully. lam well informed, as the result of studying these reports and plans. Although it was some time since I had visited the mine, I was in a good position to know the conditions there. 746. May I put it this way : that your visits and personal inspections were so rare and so insufficient ?—My visits were not frequent. 747. May I take it this way : that your personal visit would not enable you to give an opinion as to the safety of the mine ?—Uninformed as I was at that time about the presence of gas and explosions, I say it would not be fair to ask me to express an opinion on the state of the mine then. 748. Did you ever visit the mine since you have been in office and make a complete or a very full inspection and examination of it ? —By no means : it was not my duty. 749. Section 40 of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, subsection (48), in regard to the right of inspection by miners, empowers the workmen to exercise some supervision over the mine ?—lnspection, but not supervision. 750. And there is power to bring under the notice of the authorities any defects or dangers ?— Yes. They must also furnish a copy of their reports to the owner or manager. 751. And those reports are accessible to the Inspector of Mines ?—Yes. 752. Who would, no doubt, if he carried out his duty, take notice of them ? —Yes. 753. Did you ever bring under the notice of the owners of the mine, or the company that works the mine, the knowledge that you had and the opinion which you held in regard to the conditions in the mine I—No,1 —No, I have never addressed anybody except the Under-Secretary officially. 754. Are you aware whether your opinions were transmitted to the owners of the mine or the company ?—I am unaware if the Under-Secretary communicated my opinion to anybody. 755. Now, considering that you visited the mine, and that you considered the conditions there very dangerous, so much so that a holocaust was likely to take place at any moment ?—My visits were made a considerable time ago. My knowledge of the dangerous condition of the mine was obtained as the result of those concealed explosions. 756. About Christmas last I—Yes,1 —Yes, it was then obtained. 757. Then you allowed the greater portion of 1914 to elapse, and you did not even whisper to the owners of the mine, the most interested parties, that the conditions were dangerous ?—lt was not my duty to communicate with them, but to the Under-Secretary. 758. Because it was not your official duty you did not do it ? —I keep to my own duties. 759. You did not take any chances ?—There is a penalty provided under the Civil Service Regulations for divulging official information. It is my duty to report to the Under-Secretary. I address official letters to nobody else. I have no authority to communicate officially with anybody else. 760. Is that true ?—The whole of the correspondence of the Mines Department goes to the UnderSecretary for Mines, as far as mv work is concerned; officially I never receive a letter, and officially I never write one. 761. At all events, you visited the mine, and there were a number of things which you complained about, and which were afterwards attended to ?—I did that at the request of the Minister, and reported to the Under-Secretary, and he attended to them. 762. You have told us how extremely anxious you have been for a long time past to get this Coalmines Bill placed on the statute-book ? —Yes. 763. And you have told us also that this Bill is, you believe, a verbatim copy of the English Act ? — Yes ; I took a considerable hand in the report upon which it is based. 764. You took a great hand in the framing of it ? —No. 765. Well, in drafting the substance ?—Mr. Dowgray and I did a considerable part of it. 766. Did you draft subsection (2) of section 4 of the Coal-mines Bill ?—No. 767. Subsection (2) reads as follows : " The person exercising the powers of Inspecting Engineer for Mines at the coming into operation of this Act shall be deemed appointed Inspecting Engineer for Mines under this section." And subsection (3) says : " The Inspecting Engineer for Mines shall, by virtue of his office, be also the Chief Inspector of Mines, and shall have, in all parts of the Dominion, all the powers given by the principal Act to an Inspector of Mines " ?—No, sir, I did not draft that. That was not a recommendation of the 1911 Commission at all, but for twenty years all the Commissions on mines which have sat, but this one, has made a similar recommendation, and they have not been given effect to. 768. Is it a fact that the English Act provides that an Inspector may be appointed ?— Sir R. A. S. Redmayne is the Chief Inspector in England. They have a huge mining industry there. They have no Inspecting Engineer, but they have a Chief Inspector of Mines. 769. Am I right in stating that that subsection by statute appoints you Chief Inspector of Mines ? —Yes ; that appears to be so. I had no knowledge of it until I saw it in the Bill.
C—l 4.
120
[f. reed.
770. Do you not think it right that the Minister, or the Public Service Commissioner, should appoint the best man for the position ?—Certainly. 771. Without being handicapped by having a statutory appointment forced upon them ?—I do not care to express an opinion about what my superiors are likely to do ; they please themselves. 772. Have you ever during your term of office advised the owners or the lessees of this mine on any point in connection, with the safety of the mine ?—I do not think I have. I have no recollection. It is not my duty. 773. You remember your letters of the 29th ultimo and the 13th July to the Under-Secretary ? —Yes. 774. When you wrote those letters did you consider there was reasonable grounds to apprehend danger from firedamp in the mine ?—Yes, the Under-Secretary had sent me Inspector Bennies reports, and' as the result of studying them I wrote those letters. 775. Now, you know the provisions of Special Rule 14, which says that " the underviewer, under the directions of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded whensoever or wheresoever danger from firedamp is apprehended " ?—Yes. 776. Those conditions existed, according to your opinion : why did you not press for action to be taken under Special Rule 14, irrespective of a legal opinion ? —This opinion was received by me three days before the disaster. My letter of the 29th July was written after hearing that Kelly had been burnt, and with a view to urging the introduction of the Coalmines Bill. In a private letter to Mr. Bennie I advised him to get an opinion, and he wrote to the Under-Secretary and asked for permission to do so. I was the originator of the proposal. 777. Then, you did sometimes privately advise Mr. Bennie upon certain matters, and he acted upon your advice ?—I went out of my way to aid my friend. 778. Is it not an odd thing that you did not similarly go out of your way and advise him that the men ought to be withdrawn from-the mine because of the conditions which you considered dangerous ? —I did not do so ; the responsibility was not mine. 779. Do you consider all ignitions of gas-explosions ? —Yes, but it is a fine point sometimes. 780. Irrespective of the quantity of gas ? —lf it were small I would term it a minor explosion. 781. Did you ever consider it to be your duty as a Inspecting Engineer, or the duty of the Mines Department, or the duty of any of its officers, to test the inflammability of the coaldust in the New Zealand mines ? - -You are asking something after the event. I did not regard it as our duty prior to this explosion. 782. Professor Dixon has testified to the inflammability of this coaldust. The Mines Department did not consider it part of its functions to test coaldust ?—I knew the danger of coaldust as long ago as he did. 783. The point is that we have it in evidence that up till the present the Mines Department has not made any tests as to the inflammability of coaldust; may I assume, therefore, that you or the Department did not consider it your duty to make such tests ? —From the knowledge which we have now, it would have been wise if that had been done. 784. But up to the time of this explosion did you or the Department ever consider it your duty to test the inflammability of coaldust ?—We did not up till then consider it necessary. 785. Would you consider that the manager of a coal-mine might reasonably think it was not his duty to test his coaldust ?—T do not think he could reasonably be expected to consider it necessary. 786. You told us yesterday about the suppression and concealment on the part of the person in charge of these mines ?—ln connection with these explosions, yes. 787. You are aware, are you not, that the vouchers which have been produced to the Commission regarding the payment of compensation to Willcox, Conn, and Kelly disclose the fact that these men were burned ?—Yes, they say burns were received, but they do not say what caused them. 788. One of the vouchers says it was gas ?—Yes. 789. Which one says that ?—Willcox : " Burns on face due to gas." This is not forwarded to me or to the Under-Secretary. It is an application that comes to the clerical branch of the Department for the Coal-miners' Relief Fund. « 790. Do you consider that a person who wanted to conceal the fact would send that forward with an application ? —That document is merely the doctor's certificate of injuries, with the period of incapacitation from work. 791. Who sends it ? —The medical officer. 792. It is not the man who sends in the application ? —No, neither does the company put a scratch of the pen upon it. It is the doctor's certificate accompanying the Inspector's certificate for payment. 793. The management of the mine, of course, knows the practice adopted in obtaining settlement of all claims for compensation ?—lt is to be concluded so. 794. And the practice was followed in this case ? —For compensation, yes. 795. Now, would not the doctor get his information from the mine officials ?—No. The burning accident might not have happened in the mine at all, it might have happened in the smithy for all Conn or Kelly's certificates indicate. 796. Do you think it was the Inspector's duty to ascertain whether the burns were received in the smithy or in the mine from gas ? —Not unless his suspicions were aroused. Ido not think it is reasonable to expect him to hold an inquiry upon every voucher. 797. The claims coming in are numerous ?—Under this Coal-miners' Relief Fund there are hundreds. 798. It is a common thing for these burns to take place ?—No, there are all sorts of claims. 799. You do not examine them, critically —anybody in the Department ? —They are attended to in the clerical branch of the Department. They do not come under my own notice. 800. You have told us that this mine and the conditions pertaining to it are unique ?—ln my opinion.
121
C—l 4
F. REED
801. And that it requires special treatment to ensure its safety ? —Yes. 802. And as a portion of that special treatment you have told us that it requires a more powerful fan ?—Yes. 803. .Did you ever report that fact to the Under-Secretary ? —I was never asked to report it. 804. You knew that a more powerful fan was necessary, and because you were not asked to report upon that fact you did not do so ?—No. . . . The responsible Inspector would doubtless attend to that. 805. So far as you are concerned, you may know facts of the most pregnant character concerning safety or otherwise of a mine, but unless asked to disclose them you would not do so ?—I just reported upon the salient features in connection with the probability of a disaster. I drew attention to the necessity of safety-lamps. The inadequacy of the fan was a minor defect. I drew attention to the main dangers. These minor matters all contributed to the risk. I did not go through the whole list of causes of danger every time I wrote upon the subject to the Under-Secretary. 806. I am referring to the provision of the fan ; are you prepared to again lay stress upon the adequacy of the fan ? —Yes, great stress. 807. Then it is not a minor matter ? —ln comparison with the firedamp it is a minor matter. These are very serious reasons for apprehending danger. The absence of an adequate also constitutes a danger, in my opinion. 808. And you did not report it ?—I did not report every item. One or two of the principal causes of danger were sufficient. 809. There was one thing you said yesterday which I did not understand ; when you measured the gaseous mixture you said there was no air. Must not there have been air if there was a mixture ? —Will you say where, because I measured the mixture in several places. 810. Where there was 68,000 ft. ? —I said there was no perceptible ventilation in bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6. 811. Did you say there was no air there ?—Gaseous mixture consists of CH 4 and air. 812. There must have been air in that vicinity ? —Yes, but it might have been still air ; by " air " miners often imply " ventilation." 813. Containing sufficient oxygen to create an explosion ?—Yes, where I estimate 68,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture was lodged. 814. Did you say there was no ventilating-current at that place when you visited it ? —The last time I visited it they had put new brattice up to the fall; prior to that there was none in those bords. 815. Was there any there the first time ?—There was on the 19th September perceptible ventilation elsewhere in the district after the explosion. The door at No. 6 bord was blown outwards, and there must have been ventilation there subsequently of sorts. 816. You said yesterday there was no ventilating-current at that place ?—Yes, in bords 4, 5, and 6 before the explosion, judging from the mine-plan and my own observations. 817. And though nothing had happened except the explosion there was ventilation there when you first visited it ? —I would say that there was slight ventilation, the door having gone. I did not measure any ventilating-current. I would not swear there was ventilation immediately after the explosion in bord No. 6. 818. You did not mean there was no air ; you meant it comparatively ? —When we say there was no air we mean there was no moving air. 819. You told us yesterday that the force of an explosion, when ignited, was equal to 102-6 lb. per square inch ? —Sir R. A. S. Redmayne states : " The pressure due to the combustion of a mixture containing 9ij volumes of dry air to 1 volume of firedamp is equal to 102-6 lb. per square inch, and the calculated temperature of combustion is 3902° F." 820. You agree with that ?—Yes, of course ; he is a high authority. 821. If that is so, and the quantity of gas you told the Commission was present, would not the force have been sufficient to blow the shaft and fittings to pieces ?—That might take a long time to compute. 821 a. Cannot you give an idea ? —No. 822. Would you be prepared to deny that nearly 3,000,000 horse-power would have been generated on that basis ?—I do not deny or agree with that statement. 823. If that statement of yours is correct, then the approximate horse-power would be about 3,000,000 horse-power ?—I cannot answer without calculating. 824. Supposing that such a quantity of gas had been present, and if anything approaching that horse-power has been developed, would not the shaft have been blown to pieces ? —I cannot answer that either without calculating. 825. You do not know, then, what force would have been sufficient to blow the whole of that mine to pieces ?—I cannot answer that, neither could any one else. 826. You told us about the miracle that would probably have been performed if Martin had entered by the door ? —I consider it would have been a miracle if he had entered by the floor, considering the position where his body was found. 827. You stated that the gas would be purest at or about the door ?—On the roof inside the door ; that is so. 828. If that gas were very pure up there it would not have ignited ?—I cannot speak as to the degree of purity of the gas there. 829. But if it had been anything over 16 per cent., or between 10 and 16 per cent., would it have exploded ? —Yes, between 10 and 16 per cent, it would have exploded. 830. And over that ?—Not without the addition of more oxygen.
16—C. 14.
C—l 4.
122
Tf. reed.
831. The oxygen is necessary for the explosion ? —Yes. 832. Also down from the door the mixture would have been less pure ? —Naturally. 833. Well, if Martin had gone into this mixture where the gas was less pure, would not the probability of an explosion have been increased ? —Yes, all things remaining the same. 834. You made.this statement: That when you inspected near the old fall you saw a pile of rails ? —I saw a pile with some rails sticking out near where Martin's body was found. 835. You did not really mean a jaile of rails ?—I saw some rails sticking out of a pile of stone, and the rails were perhaps a foot or more from the floor. 836. The rails were sticking out of the debris a foot or more from the floor ?—Yes. 837. If it is proved that there was only one rail, would you deny it ?—There was a pile containing rails. I saw the pile containing rails and stone, and I assumed, therefore, that there was a pile of rails. 838. As regards the fan, you stated that it was adequate to comply with the existing law ?-- I said the fan was adequate for the minimum quantity of air prescribed under the exisitng law— 150 cubic feet per man per minute. 839. It was adequate to comply with the existing law and regulations? —Subsection (J), paragraph (2), of section 40 of the Act says, " Provided that where the Inspector was satisfied that such rate (150 cubic feet per minute) is insufficient to provide adequate ventilation, he may from time to time require the rate to be increased." So you see 150 ft. per man per minute is an absolute minimum quantity. 840. Professor Dixon, in his evidence, said that 2| per cent, of gas could be detected by the ordinary miner ?—I am not sure if he said that. 841. I think you said yesterday that this was a specially dangerous mine, because there were large areas of high workings to be ventilated ?—That is my opinion. 842. I suppose for the last seven or eight years you knew that fact ?— You must consider my reasons for anxiety as a whole. 843. I am trying to analyse them as a whole ? —A large area in itself is not a danger. 844. A large area of high workings to be ventilated is not in itself a danger ?—That is so unless under unique conditions, as at Ralph's Mine. 845. Another thing you stated yesterday as a danger was that there were inexperienced men all around as far as the gas was concerned ? —That is a fact, owing to there being only one other mine containing gas in New Zealand where the men can be trained. 846. You say that the mine is dangerous because there are inexperienced men all round ?—You are attributing to me words that I never uttered. 847. You say the men all round : did you only mean the New Zealand men ?—I mean all through the mine. The New-Zealander is not experienced in gas-testing as the English collier is, because the men at Home often work in a gaseous mine. A man may be working at such mines as Denniston all his life, and never see gas. 848. You have said that the men here all round are inexperienced in dealing with gas ?—I have explained why. 849. Do you say that it is a cause for fear that in this mine the men all round are inexperienced in gas ?—lt was one of my causes of fear that the men all round generally about the mine were inexperienced in firedamp. 850. Did you report that fact to the Department ?—No. 851. Do you consider it important? —I considered it as one of my reasons for my fear of danger. 852. Did you consider that it contributed to the danger ? —lt does. 853. But you did not report it ? —I have told you over and over again that I did not write a specification of all my fears ; I simply remarked the prominent causes. 854. You made this statement yesterday, on the ventilation-point: "As I was not in the mine for a long time before the explosion I cannot say that the mine was ill ventilated, but the fan was not sufficient " ?— That was my statement. 855. Is it correct ?—Yes. 856. If Mr. Bennie reported that the mine was not ill ventilated, would you be prepared to contradict him ? —He forms his opinion and I form mine. Ido not answer for his opinion. 857. Do you adhere to your opinion if he denies it ?—I am satisfied that the mine could not be adequately ventilated with that small fan—that is, adequately ventilated to remove and render harmless the noxious gases. 858. Do you know the provisions of Special Rule No. 3 ? —Yes ; it is to the effect that the manager shall see that an adequate amount of ventilation is constantly produced in the mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases, to such an extent that the working-places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mines and the travelling-roads to and from such working-places shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be in a fit state for working and passing therein. It does not matter what the fan is doing. Every working or travelling part of the mine must be adequately ventilated. That is where I consider the company made the mistake and the mine was wrecked for the time being. Your company broke the rules, and you have taken good care to avoid alluding to ventilation of the mine. 859. Do you know the provisions of Special Rule 1 ?—Yes. 860. When did you form the opinion that the duties imposed upon the manager under Special Rules 1 and 3 had not been fulfilled ?—When I heard of the explosions and ignitions. 861. Since the explosions ?—Yes. 862. And am I right in inferring from that that the fact of the explosion caused you to entertain that opinion ?—Whenever there was a man burned by an explosion there was inadequate ventilation at that place, otherwise the noxious gases would have been diluted and rendered harmless in that section.
F. REED.]
123
0. -14,
863. Please refer to section 40, which, says, " The following general rules shall, so far as may be reasonably practicable, be observed in every mine : (1.) Ventilation shall be constantly maintained in every mine at the rate of not less than 150 cubic feet of air per minute for every person and 600 cubic feet of air per minute for every horse or other animal while employed underground. Provided that where the Inspector is satisfied that such rate is insufficient to provide adequate ventilation he may from time to time require the rate to be increased to such extent as he thinks reasonable, either throughout the underground workings or in any specified part thereof " ?—Yes, that is the Inspector's power, but under Special Rule 3 the manager has certain duties to perform. 864. Do you know whether the manager ever reported that he was not satisfied with the rate of ventilation provided ?—I do not know, but Ido know that he reported to the Inspector that the company was getting a new-fan owing to the small fan at present in use not being adequate, or words to that effect. 865. Do you know that that was voluntarily done, and that the company has never been requested to do it, nor ordered ? —I do not know. 866. You know that the Inspector has power to secure efficient ventilation in the mine ?— It is the duty of the manager. The section says that the Inspector may from time to time require the rate to be, increased if he thinks it insufficient. 867. He did not order it in this case to be increased, according to our evidence ?— Apparently not. 868. Do you say that he failed in his duty ?- -I say he was lenient, but that does not absolve the manager. 869. I am not referring to the manager, but to the Inspector ?—He was lenient, in my opinion. 870. You said this was a mine which required special treatment ?- Yes. 871. You said that locked doors ought to be provided and ventilators inserted above the doors ? —Yes, above some of the doors in old workings. 872. That is what you meant by " special treatment " ? —That is correct so far as it goes. 873. Did you ever report that opinion to the Department-?— No. 874. Did you report it to anybody ?—No. 875. Did you advise that it ought to be done % —No, it was not my duty. 876. Mr. Tanks.] You gave us a list of your qualifications, Mr. Reed, and there is only one point in connection with that matter to which I wish to refer. Will you tell us what coal-mines you have actually managed -those of which you have been the actual certificated manager 1 The Mokihinui Coal Company's mine in New Zealand ; the State Colliery at Collie, in Western Australia- I was manager of that mine, but in that country the manager did not then require a'certificate, although I held two. 877. The only one in New Zealand was the Mokihinui Company's mine : where was that ?—On the west coast of the South Island. For a short time I was certificated manager of a little mine at Waimangaroa, near Westport, and also certificated manager of a mine of which I was one of the owners -the New Cardiff, at Mokihinui. 878. Take the Mokihinui: does that belong to a private company ? Yes, it did—to a New Zealand company. 879. How many men were employed there ? At the first, perhaps sixty or seventy; that is twenty-nine years ago. 880. That was the first one you managed in New Zealand ?- —Yes. 881. And how long were you manager of that ?-- -About two years. 882. What did you do then ?—Within a few months T went to the New Cardiff Mine. 1 discovered that mine while at Mokihinui in 1886. 883. How many men were employed there ?—During my time, just a few prospectors. Ido not suppose there were more than half a dozen. After that I went to the Westport Coal Company ap assistant engineer and surveyor, where 1 was for five years. 884. You were not the certificated manager there ?—No. 885. After the New Cardiff, how long was it when you went to the Waimangaroa Mine?—l should say, a year or two. 886. How long were you there ?—I think I was only about a month or two there ; it was a prospecting mine. 887. And that was all your appointments as colliery manager in New Zealand ?■— Yes. 888. Your other experience as colliery manager was prior to that, was it ?—Yes, and afterwards in Western Australia. 889. And were you manager of a coal-mine in Western Australia ?—A coal-mine and also a goldmine. 890. One of each ? -Yes. 891. Where was the coal-mine ? —It was at Collie River. And I also developed the coal-area near Vasse. 892. You were manager of the Collie River Mine ? Yes. 893. How long were you manager of that mine ? -About eighteen months. 894. Then I understood you to say that you were interested in some other mine, but you were not the manager ?■■■ Yes, I had the management of the Vasse boring operations. 895. But you were not manager ?—There was no mine-manager. I was in charge of the operations. 896. Then you opened the State coal-mine at Seddonville ?—I was the prospector and the first discoverer of it twenty-nine years ago, before it became State property, and it was then named the New Cardiff Mine. 897. From the time you left Waimangaroa, did you manage any other coal-mine in New Zealand ?—No, I left New Zealand ; but I held positions in connection with coal-mines elsewhere. I
124
C—l 4.
[F. REED.
have had five years' experience at collieries in Durham, England, i entered the firm of Bell Bros., where I started as a mining apprentice, and ended up as a first-class certificated manager. 898. What mine did you manage at Durham ?—The Lumpsey Ironstone Mine at Cleveland, near Durham. 899. But not a coal-mine '{ —No. I was five years in a coal-mine, and got my first-class coal-mine manager's certificate in Durham. 900. May I take it that we have got down now ail your experience as a manager of coal-mines '{ — That is correct. 901. Is there anything else which you think we ought to know regarding your experience ? —I had four years and a half at Durham, and went through every grade in the mines. I joined the Westport Coal Company under the late Mr. Brown. I was assistant engineer and surveyor there. For two years and a half I was Inspector of Coal-mines for Western Australia. Then, since I have been in this country, during the last nine years, I have been dealing with coal-mining matters. For the last four years I have been Consulting Engineer to the State coal-mines. I was manager of the Peak Hill Goldfields (Limited) in Western Australia, employing hundreds of men. I was manager of the Doric Goldmines, Colorado, U.S.A., for eighteen months or two years. 1 was Inspector of Mines for the Central Goldfields of Western Australia. 1 have visited mines in Transvaal and British Columbia, reporting upon them for British syndicates. 902. Was the mine in British Columbia gold or coal ? —Copper. 903. And the Transvaal ?—Gold, i was also engaged upon the Tasmanian silver-fields for about six months, and reported in that country on coal-mines at Jerusalem and Sandfly Bay, Huon district. 904. 1 understand from you that you inspected the Taupiri coal-mines some three years ago ? — Yes, I went round part of them. 905. You did not say you have inspected them ?—I kept my eyes open as I went round. 906. Three years ago —was any report of your inspection given to the manager 1 —No; it was for the Royal Commission. 907. May I take it that you have never made any inspection of the Taupiri Coal-mine, after which you reported to any one ? —No, that is not so. On one occasion Mr. McKenzie, then Minister of Mines, asked me to go down this mine and investigate certain matters. 908. That was in connection with the Taupiri West connection '( —Yes, and some complaints from the men. 909. And I think I understood you to say that so far as the complaint of the men was concerned, it was attended to ?—I think so, promptly, by Mr. Wight, then manager. 910. You have told us about how you came to learn about the gas in the mine—certain burnings were reported. We want one point: you said something about the danger; are you depending on the four cases —Willcox, Conn, Rustin, and Kelly ?—There were some others also communicated to me, but 1 do not remember the names. I did not make a note of them, because I did not want my informant to know that I was uninformed. One name sounded like " Dexter " ; it was a boy who had been trespassing in a part of the mine where he had no right to be —namely, old workings. 911. You cannot give his name, so perhaps you will agree that it would be better to leave that case out of count ?—Yes, you can leave it out. 912. You rely upon the four cases —Conn, Rustin, Kelly, and Willcox ?—And probably further concealed cases, as since admitted here. 913. You made comment upon the fact that so many Taupiri men presented themselves for gas-testing certificates ?—Yes ; several miners came down to the Exhibition. 914. Did you not ask the secretary of the union to suggest to the men, that they should come and submit themselves to the test ?—Very likely. 915. Then, as a matter of fact, there is nothing surprising in the number of men that came 'I — The number did surprise me when 1 knew the reason. 916. Did it surprise you that your simple request had produced such a result I—l1 —I believe it did. 917. Did you know whether any of the men who came up for that test were deputies who had been down for an examination in December —about Christmas ?—No, I did not know about Christmas whether they were deputies or not. 918. Did you about that time hold an examination for deputies ? -1 held an examination in February or March. There were then a lot of candidates coming up for deputies' certificates, also underviewers. The men who came up for underviewers' certificates also took the gas-testing examination. 919. Were some of them from Huntly ( —Yes. 920. Can you say, roughly, how many ? —Not exactly. 921. Can you say how many men you tested ? —No. . 922. Not a rough idea—not between six and sixty ?—Yes, considerably fewer than sixty. From the Taupiri mines or other mines ? 923. From Huntly, I mean ? —I cannot remember how many came from Huntly. I examined a good number, and they came intermittently during two months. . 924. You cannot say —twenty or thirty ? —I think there were less than thirty from Huntly. 925. Do you remember this man, Young : he brought a letter from Mr. Fletcher to you ?—1 think he did. I could not, however, swear that he did. 926- Well, then, did all these men whom you tested get their tickets ?—Some did and some did not. 927. Can you give us any idea of the proportion who failed ?—ln the underviewers' section 1 think they all failed for their certificates as underviewers; perhaps one out of half a dozen passed, but I cannot remember. 928. Were they all Huntly men ?—I could not say.
125
C—l 4
F. REED
929. 1 mean the gas-reading test I —The majority of them passed. 1 gave them a demonstration first, and then they were examined. 930. And the majority got the certificate for the gas-test I —Yes, i think they were mostly from the Extended Mine, i think there was only Darby and Young from Ralph's. 931. Do you remember whether there was any more from Ralph's ? —I could not say. 932. You are unable to say__exactly how manyjinen came from Huntly, and how many of them failed ?—I cannot say. 933. Would you say more obtained the certificate in the gas-reading test than failed ! —Yes, after 1 had taught them how to test for gas. I then examined them in gaseous mixtures. 934. Now, in regard to these celebrated cases of Conn and Willcox, is there anything in the Act which requires an accident to be reported simply because it is a gas-burning ?—I do not think so, but I would not be sure. 935. You have said that the first intimation you had was in Mr. Fletcher's letter of Bth January, 1914 ?— Yes. 936. You asked Mr. Bennie to get him to report, without prejudice ?— 1 told him, " Tell him if he gives us a letter reporting the cases we will treat the matter as past, as far as these men are concerned." 937. Mr. Bennies letter read this way: "' Will you be good enough to forward me at your earliest convenience a list of the persons burned by the explosion of powder and also the ignition of firedamp during the past two years, together with the dates of the accidents. An early reply will greatly oblige." There is nothing in that about " without prejudice " ?- -No, he has not put it in. 938. Now we will take Mr. Fletcher's letter in reply, dated 14th January, 1914 : " I beg to acknowledge your letter of the Bth instant regarding accidents by powder explosions and the ignition of firedamp. In the Extended Mine there were two cases of burning by explosions of firedamp during the past two years, but not serious. The first occurred to David Conn, a shiftman. There had been a fall of roof at the face of the west heading, and he with other men had been sent to repair same. During the course of repairs slabbing had to be done, and while putting the slabs into position overhead he got his naked light, which was on his head, too far into the fall; some gas which had apparently collected in a pocket was ignited and he received burns to both arms : date of occurrence, 16/2/12. This place had been inspected and reported '' All clear " just previous to the shift commencing. The next occurred to William Willcox, who was a roadman at that time. It appears that on the previous afternoon this man had commenced to lay a turn in-to a cross-heading which was driven in a distance of 15 yards and brattice carried right to the face. He did not complete the laying of the turn, but went in a little earlier next morning, but not before the examining deputy had inspected the place. At the point where he was laying the turn, 15 yards back from the face, an ignition of firedamp took place. Mr. Wood, the certificated manager, in company with Deputy Duncan and Assistant Deputy Wood, immediately inspected the place after the accident and found no trace of any gas. It may have collected in a roof cavity through a disarrangement of the brattice, but Mr. Wood is of the opinion that the acetylene-lamp he was carrying at the time on his head had exploded. I might add these explosions occurred during the time the small fan was doing duty, and there is no doubt —although plenty as regards quantity to comply with the Act —there was not sufficient volume to keep down small accumulations during the time the mine was not working ; but since the new fan has been erected these troubles are things of the past: date of occurrence, 26/3/12. Regarding the burning of Alexander Reid by an explosion of blasting-powder on the 14th December, 1912, this accident was reported to you under date 16th December, 1912. In Ralph's Mine a roadman named Arthur Ruston went into an old bord in Dooley's Dip to lift some rails near the face, and he ignited a small accumulation of gas near the face with his naked light. He escaped without injury."' On the face of it there is a doubt as to whether really that was a gas-burn or not ?—Not in my mind. 939. There was no occasion to report Arthur Ruston ?— Legally or morally ? 940. No occasion under the Act to report Arthur Ruston -he suffered no injury ?—I shall not state that there is nothing in the Act. 941. Let us assume that it is only cases of serious injury which have to be reported; therefore there was no necessity to report Ruston's case ? Do you say so. I dare say you could puzzle me quite easily with your interpretations of the Act. 942. In those three cases I want to put it to you that the only definite and clear case so far as the reporting of a burning by gas is concerned was the case of Conn ?—I count all those other concealed burnings by gas. I did not believe that letter. 943. You did not believe Mr. Fletcher's letter of the 14th January, 1914 ? -That it expressed all the burnings in the company's mines up to that date ? 944. Bear in mind that what you asked for was a list covering the past two years. Do you say that you do not believe that Mr. Fletcher's letter contains all the cases of burnings he was asked to give for the two previous years ?- -I do not believe that it contains them up to that date. 945. During the past two years is the only point we are discussing. Do you say that Mr. Fletcher's letter of the 14th January, 1914, does not contain a true account of the burnings for the past two years ? —I doubt very much if it does. The two years was not mentioned to me when I answered your first question. I meant all burnings up to that date. , 946. We are dealing with this particular letter, which covers a period of two years only. Do you say that that letter of Mr. Fletcher's does not contain a true account of what Mr. Bennie asked for ?—■ I cannot say whether it is true or untrue ; that is my final answer. 947. Have you any reason for suggesting that it is untrue ?—Well, Ido not give any reason. I think the truth of it is doubtful.
C— 14.
126
r F. REED.
948. You have no reason, but you have formed the opinion without any reason that the truth is doubtful t —The truth is doubtful; I have my reasons for believing so. 949. You have doubts, but you have got no reasons that you can assign for those doubts ?—-I have no actual evidence. 950. Have you any information ! —From information received, I have. 951. There is no reason why I should not have got that at first. You could have supplied a reason for believing that it is not true. You have told me that the letter was not worthy of credence. Do you realize what you have said :' -I did not use the word " credence ". 952. That is a pure quibble ; you said the letter was not true ? —ln my opinion, it is not true. 953. The letter of the mine-manager is not true '. —I doubt its truth. 954. As far as it goes, or whether it is the whole truth ? —I doubt if it is the whole truth, from information I have received. 955. What is the true information ? —That there were burnings that were not put down in Mr. Fletcher's letter. 956. Since two years before the 14th January, 1914 : were you told of these burnings during the two years previous to that ? —They were of comparatively recent date. 957. And you were told it by a man who had got into a place where he had no business to be. Did it ever occur do you that Mr. Fletcher had not heard of that case ? —I do not know whether Mr. Fletcher knew or did not know, but that was only one of several cases. 958. When did you find out about the inaccuracy of Mr. Fletcher's statement ?->-I have foimed my opinion, and I am going to stick to it. 959. I want to know if you are going to stick to the opinion that Mr. Fletcher did not in his official letter state the whole truth ?—Yes ; he did not report everything that occurred in the way of burnings. 960. That is your opinion, and it is based upon the fact that some one whom you, quite rightly, do not name told you of a case —one case ?—One case specially, but he referred to other cases. 961. If Mr. Fletcher were to state on his oath that he knew nothing at all about such a case, would you then withdraw what you said as to the inaccuracy of his letter ?-—I think Mr. Fletcher is a truthful man, and if he swore on oath that there were no other cases to his knowledge I would believe he was speaking the truth; but that would not clear my mind that men had not been burned. 962. That is an entirely different matter. You are prepared to accept Mr. Fletcher's statement that he knew nothing about such a case ?—lf he swears that he knew of no other cases but those, I am prepared to believe him. 963. And you want Mr. Fletcher's oath before you accept his official letter to the Inspector—do you want his oath before you accept his letter ?—Not unless he desires to give it. 964. Will you accept his letter ?—I will if he now endorses it. 965. Then all you stated about your doubts may be crossed out now ?—lf he now says it is true. 966. Do you think Mr. Fletcher requires to be put under such a serious condition before he states the truth. ?—I would like him to say that. 967. Why do you suggest that he should be asked to say that it is true now ?—Because we are now under totally different conditions. That letter was written before the great explosion occurred, and I would like him to say now whether it is absolutely true. 968. Do you suggest that Mr. Fletcher has two methods of writing letters—one when he is serious and one when he is not serious ?—I do not suggest anything. 969. Do you still say, in spite of my examination, that you doubt the accuracy of that letter 1 — Until Mr. Fletcher has absolutely stated that it is true, I still doubt it. 970. Does that apply to every letter and every report to the Inspector ?—No, they are written under different conditions altogether. This letter admits concealment of burnings of men. The other letters from him are ordinary business letters. 971. Giving up a concealment ? Do you think he was under any impression or concealment ? —Mr. Bennie did not show me his letter before he wrote it. I asked him to put " without prejudice.' 972. Is there anything anywhere that leads you to suppose that Mr. Fletcher ever thought he was suspected of concealing anything ?—I do not know what was in his mind. 973. If Mr. Fletcher had wanted" to conceal this, would he have included it—these matters of Conn and Willcox —in the letter that he wrote to Mr. Bennie in 1912 ?—I do not know what the letter he wrote in 1912 contained. This is the first I have heard of a letter in 1912. 974. You realize now that you have Mr. Bennies letter and Mr. Fletcher's reply, that Mr. Bennie did not have to resort to" without prejudice " to get the information ?—Unless he said it verbally. 975. Have you not heard of this letter of the 29th March, 1912, from Mr. Fletcher to Mr. Bennie 1 He says, " I enclose a list of workmen who have received accidents " ?—I never heard of it. 976. It includes quite a number of various kinds of accidents, amongst the number is one of burns :'' I.6th February, David Conn—burns to face and hands." It does not say by gas. It also refers to William Willcox. You admit that Mr. Fletcher reported the fact that Conn and Willcox had been burned on the 29th March, 1912 ?—Yes, but the report did not mention " burns by gas " ; they might have been burns received at boilers or in the smith}-. 977. Now, may I have those vouchers of the payment to these men from the Coal-miners' Belief Fund, which you referred to a little while ago ? " David Conn : Arms, neck, and face burnt." This, at any rate, reached the IJnder-Secretary, Mr. Reed, and also the Minister ?—Yes. 978. It contains the same information—the doctor's certificate that the burn was due to mining ? —Yes, but it is for the Coal-miners' Relief Fund, and includes blacksmiths and enginemen. 979. Now we come to Willcox ; here we have a pink form and a green form —the pink is declaring on and the green form declaring off. The doctor's certificate says, " This is to certify that Mr.
F. REED. 1
127
C—l 4.
William Willcox is suffering from burns to face due to gas due to mining, and is therefore unable to do any work " ?—Yes, but this was not from Mr. Fletcher. 980. This also reached Mr. Blow and "J. 0." (Mr. Colvin), Minister of Mines. Now, Mr. Reed, are you aware that a form similar to those pink and green ones is supplied to Mr. Fletcher ?—T do not know. 981. Do you know that a similar form is supplied to the Inspector of Mines % —I take it that this is the Inspector's copy. 982. You see that it is signed " B. Bennie. Inspector of Mines " ?—Yes. 983. And no doubt when this form, so far as Willcox is concerned, reached Mr. Bennie on the 20th April, 1912, he was aware that Willcox had been burned by gas ?—lf he read the form he would be aware. 984. Do you think that this would pass through his hands and he would not be aware that Willcox had been burned by gas—do you suggest that ?—I say it is possible. If an officer has to deal with a great number of forms in one day he may pass them on for payment without reading the details on all of them. 985. You have said that you do not know whether Mr. Fletcher received a similar form. ?—I asked Mr. Bennie if he knew of these burnings, and he deliberately said " No." I believe that he had not read Willcox's doctor's certificate. 986. Mr. Fletcher was aware, as I that he gets a similar form that would go to the Inspector ?—You say so. 987. Then he wrote the letter of the 29th March, 1912, and this going on—that Willcox was burned from, gas—where is the suggestion that he was trying to conceal the burnings by gas ?—He did not report the fact in a proper manner. A detective might be able to trace a burning from that clue, perhaps, if he happened to find it. 988. Where is the evidence of a deliberate attempt to conceal the fact that Willcox was burned by gas ?—ln that case there is no evidence of deliberate intent to conceal in the doctor's certificate. 989. You have charged the company with a deliberate attempt to conceal these things ?—Some of them. 990. In all these' cases, with deliberately concealing ?—And not reporting them. 991. Suppression of facts by the company, of deceiving the Government, and a unique instance of suppression of facts : were those statements correct ?—The first two are my opinion, but the unique instance Mr. Tunks (to the Chairman) : My position is this : Mr. Reed has charged us with successfully and deliberately concealing these things over a period of two years. Witness : Yes, from the Mines Department. 992. Mr. Tunks.] So far as Willcox is concerned, at any rate, there does not appear to be any evidence ?—Not of a deliberate attempt, but of concealment. 993. Let us take Kelly's case ?—Kelly's case was reported after concealment was useless. 994. Then the only case we have left is that of Conn ?—And what about Ruston ? 995. Ruston was reported as having escaped without injury, and assuming, Mr. Reed, that Mr. Fletcher's letter is correct, that was not required to be reported, so we eliminate Ruston ?—I say his moral duty was to report everything. 996. Then we have eliminated Ruston, Kelly, and Willcox, so that we are reduced to the one case of Conn as having been deliberately concealed. Now, you are aware that the Inspector has the right to look at the manager's books whenever he goes to the mine ?—Yes. 997. I think you said it was the right and proper thing for an Inspector to do ?—Yes. 998. Here is Mr. Wood's book —that is, the manager of the Extended Mine. I want you to look at it. Mr. Wilford has seen this book. Mr. Bennie saw it at that time—l7th February, 1.912. It says, " During the week examined working-places, airways, and have had examined shafts, buildings, and machinery, and find all safe and in good order. Ventilation good.- —W. Wood." "On Thursday, 15th February, a fall took place in the west side at No. 4 heading face ; sent men. to repair it. On Saturday morning back shift, Deputy Thomas Brownlie reported that a shiftman named David Conn had got his arm burned the previous night while repairing the above fall. It had previously been examined and found all clear. It appears he had been slabbing some of the timber, and had put his light up to see what he was doing when a slight explosion took place, burning his arms.—W. Wood." That is Conn's case, so that Mr. Wood had it in his book. Then another entry in the book is as follows : " Extended Mine, 30/3/12. During the week examined working-places, airways, shafts, buildings, and machinery, and found all safe. On Tuesday morning, 26th, W. Willcox, roadman, got slight,]}' burned in No. 4 dip, back heading, west side, by an explosion of gas. I examined it immediately after and failed to find trace of gas. The deputy, F. Duncan, and W. Wood, assistant deputy, accompanied me.- -W. Wood." He has duly entered these things in his book, which the Inspector had the right to see ?—The Inspector should have seen these entries. 999. Is there any evidence now of concealment ?—No, not in that book by Mr. Wood. 1000. There is no evidence of concealment so far as Mr. Wood's book is concerned ?—No, not in those cases of Conn and Willcox, but there is concealment under section 62 of the Act, which states that, " The mine-manager shall forthwith after the occurrence of any accident attended with serious injury to any person give notice thereof by telegraph to the Minister and to the Inspector, and shall also at the same time send written notice thereof to the Inspector and to the workmen's inspector. Every manager who omits to give such notice shall be guilty of an offence." That was a concealment; putting it in a book and not drawing the attention of anybody to it. 1001. That is, Mr. Reed, assuming that it would be held to be a serious accident under section 62 ? —I say all burnings by gas-explosions are serious accidents.
C—l 4.
128
[f. reed.
1002. You have not the right to say. His Worship might have been called upon to say so ?—ln my opinion they are most serious accidents. 1003. Which are ?—An)' burnings by gas-explosions by which|men are kept off work two or three weeks, f consider it most serious. 1004. You consider it ought to have been reported ?—Yes. 1005. Mr. Fletcher took a different view ?—Yes. 1006. Now, then, Mr. Fletcher having exercised his intellect, and having taken a different view, where is the evidence of concealment ?—The evidence is that he never reported it in proper manner, and was liable to be punished for it. 1007. That is, assuming that it was held to be a serious case ; but if Mr. Fletcher considered in good faith that it was not serious enough, where is the concealment ?—He nevertheless concealed these burnings. 1008. He did not report it. You say that the fact that he did not report it because he did not think it was serious was a concealment ?—I do. 1009. Why, sir, I might as well suggest that Mr. Reed concealed his colliery experience because he did not tell it to us ?—He should have reported it, and the very fact that he did. not report it means that he concealed it. I say again that he concealed it. I have proved it. that the concealment occurred. 1010. We have it down to this : that notwithstanding what I have placed before the Commission you still say that Mr. Fletcher deliberately, and with intention to deceive somebody, concealed those cases ?—I say he concealed them ; what his intentions were Ido not know, but he concealed tha,t information from the Minister. 1011. Do you say that Mr. Fletcher deliberately and with intention to deceive somebody concealed those cases ?—I shall not say he deliberately concealed them. 1012. You do not say so ?—No. 1013. I am not asking the question as to whether the information reached the Department or not ?—lt never did. 1014. I am trying to convince you that there was no concealment of it ?—You cannot convince me. 101.5. You are still of opinion that he deliberately ?—As facts have proved, he concealed those burnings from the Minister. 1016. Then, non-reporting was concealing ?—Under the conditions, yes, in view of the danger. 1017. Now, you have shown us by all your letters to the Department and the Under-Secretary how uneasy you were. lam only sorry your suggestions were not carried out. lam acting for the company, and also realize that you have made strong statements against the company ?—And I believe them to be true. 1018. Now, can you say that Mr. Fletcher was made in any way acquainted with your opinion as to the extreme danger that existed in Ralph's Mine ?—I do not know. 1019. So far as you are concerned, did you do anything yourself to make him aware ?—No, it was not my duty. 1020. So far as you are aware, was any other person connected with the company made acquainted with your views ?—No. 1021. Did you take steps yourself to make any other person than Mr. Fletcher connected with the company aware of your views ?—I do not understand who you refer to. 1022. Did you take any steps to make any person connected with the company other than Mr. Fletcher aware of your views ?—No, it was not my duty. 1023. Then, so far as your views are concerned, Mr. Reed, there was nothing to bring them to the knowledge of Mr. Fletcher, or any one else connected with the company, except anything that might have come to the Inspectoi ?—From the Under-Secretary ; that is correct. 1024. -Now, sir, we have had all the correspondence between the Inspector and the manager put in, and you have seen it ?—I did not hear their evidence and have not seen it. 1025. There was a letter from the Inspector of Mines dated 30th May, 1914 ; Mr. Fletcher's reply of the 4th June, 1914 ; a note by Mr. Bennie in the manager's report-book dated 2nd July, 1914; a letter dated 25th August, 1914, from Mr. Bennie to Mr. Fletcher ; Mr. Fletcher's reply of the 26th August, 1914 ; then a further letter from the Inspector dated the 11th July, 1914 ; and Mr. Fletcher's reply of the 20th July, 1914. I think that is the whole of the correspondence that took place between the Inspector and the manager. Now, then, my question is this : With the exception of anything that appears in that correspondence, there is nothing to acquaint Mr. Fletcher with the fact of your views as to the danger in the mine ?—There is not, unless verbal communication may have taken place between the Inspector and Mr. Fletcher. 1026. There is no evidence of any such verbal communication ?—Oh ' 1027. We may take it that neither Mr. Fletcher nor any one connected with the mine had been made aware of your views of the danger in Ralph's Mine ?—I am not aware. 1028. And you will admit that the correspondence does not disclose any such evidence ?—The correspondence mentioned does not. In one of your letters you made the point that safety-lamps ought to be used in the mine ; that was in your letter of the 13th August ?—Yes. 1029. It is quite clear that the company were never recommended to use safety-lamps ?—I do not know what the Inspector of Mines recommended verbally. 1030. Unless there was a verbal recommendation we may take it that no such recommendation was made ?—Except it was made verbally, I have no knowledge of it. 1031. You made reference to the shaft-pillars ; they have nothing to do with the cause of the explosion in the mine ?—But the Commission is empowered to deal with the matter of safety precautions generally. That is included in No. sof their order of reference.
F. REED.]
129
P.—l 4.
1032. But these shaft-pillars did not contribute to this disaster ?—No, but they are a source of danger. 1033. Have you measured the shaft-pillars ?—No, but your surveyor has, and I have his plan. 1034. You are taking your evidence from the plan ?—And my recent inspection. L 035. Did you make any calculation as to the cubic contents of the pillars ?—I did not. .1036. Then your statement that the pillars are insufficient is based upon your observance of the pillars and the plan, without any computation ?—No, but it is palpable without computation. 1037. Then, from that examination, without measurement, you say that it is palpable that the pillars are insufficient ? —There are no pillars of any magnitude, and round about the shaft is riddled with workings. 1038. Eound about the shaft is not safe ?—lt is not safe. 1039. Have you any idea how long it has been as it is now ?—A considerable time, I believe. 1040. Do you know whether any change of any kind has taken place in those pillars ?—There must have been. 1041. Do you know whether any change has been noticed ?—I saw the change myself. 1.042. You do know it, because you saw it ? —Yes. 1043. Since when ? —lt is going on all the time. 1044. Did you take notice of those pillars when you were here before ?—No. 1045. How can you say, then ?—Because the coal is piled up. The pillars fret so much that we had to move the broken coal aside to use our instruments for air-measurement. Once fretting commences it continues. 1046. Was there any appreciable effect on those pillars ?—Yes. 1047. To what extent —say, J in. ? —Piles of broken coal were near the pillars in places. 1.048. Which you assume have come from the pillars ?—lt could have come from nowhere else. 1049. What do you suggest should be done to remedy the trouble 1- -I think it is a difficult problem. I would build up circular stone pillars. The area of the shaft-pillars in square yards should be equal to sixteen times the depth in fathoms ; that is an approximate formula. 1050. Have you made any calculation to see whether that formula has been complied with ?— I can see that it has not. 1.051. Then you made some remark about the arbitration proceedings which this company engaged in : that was in connection with the second shaft across the river, was it not ? —Yes. 1052. And I think you said the company eluded its duty ? —Yes, but they won the arbitration case. 1053. Now, do you suggest that the company concealed anything, or did anything that was notcorrect ?- -They fought the case, and won ; but they should not have done so. 1054. The tribunal was two mine-managers and Mr. Justice Denniston ? —I know ; but the Inspector had no expert assistance. Your company had more expert witnesses, and thereby won the case, in my opinion. 1055. I think the Inspector was represented by Mr. P. E. Baume ?—Possibly ; but I knew he would be beaten through absence of expert evidence. 1056. That was no reflection upon the company ?--Not a bit. 1057. There is one other small matter I wish to refer to : you said you understood that men have been burned in the winning-places in Ralph's : have you any evidence of that —as to the burnings in the working-places ? —I meant the new workings, where you have got a better air-current than in the old workings. 1058. Actual working-faces ?—Where there ought to be a current of air men have received burns. 1059. Which are better ventilated than the old workings : what is your evidence ? —Kelly was not burned in the old workings. 1060. No ; he was burned in the stone drive ? —That is so ; not in old workings. 1061. You were referring to Kelly's case ? —Yes. 1062. Is there any other case ?—I do not know exactly where those other men were when they were burned. Mr. Fletcher can tell you, perhaps ; but they were not in the old workings. 1063. The only one you know of is Kelly ?—I understand that Conn and Willcox were also burned in new workings. 1064. When you made that statement, what was the ground for your belief ? —That is my impression. It has been on my mind that those men were burned in new workings. I remember reading that it was in some new drive that was being put in. 1065. When did you get that ? —At the time of Bennies report. 1066. You knew of Kelly's case at the time ? —Yes ; that was the only case Mr. Fletcher properly reported at the time. 1067. Kelly's case is the only case that you can remember on which you based this statement ? — I believed that the others were burned in new workings, too. I have always believed so. 1068. What made you believe it ? —lt was upon my mind that nobody was allowed in the old workings. The new workings only are where men should be allowed to go. 1069. Since when has it been on your mind ?—As far back as when Mr. Fletcher's report came in on the 14th February; he did not then say that they were in the old workings. I took it then that they were in the new workings. 1070. Now we come to the question of the samples. You said something about Professor Dixon taking part of your samples without your permission. What did you mean ?—He went down to Wellington, and without asking my permission he proceeded to the Dominion Laboratory, and got a coaldust sample of the mine. He tested it, and came back here and gave evidence without admitting
17—C. 14.
a—l 4.
130
JF. REED.
that it was my sample. He said he got it from the Minister, though my name, in Dr. Maclaurin's handwriting, was on the bottle containing the sample. 1071. Has it got anything to do with the bottle ?—I had subsequently to identify that sample in this Court. 1072. It is quite clear that that sample came from, the Taupiri Mine ?— Yes, unless the contents have been changed after it left my hands. 1073. And that established the veracity of the professor ?—His veracity is rather complicated. 1074. Do you suggest that Professor Dixon did anything in regard to that sample which he should not have done '—Only that it was not professional etiquette to take another man's sample for analysis without asking for or acknowledging it. 1075. We heard a great deal about this grab sample— the sample grabbed from the coal-scuttle-do you know anything about it ?—Only what I have heard here. 1076. That is all you know about it ?—lt was grabbed by the professor at the local hotel a week before I came here, so I am informed. 1077. You do not suggest that Professor Dixon took a piece of coal, and did not know where it came from, and analysed that and gave evidence upon it ?- No; he said he threw that sample away, and reported to the Minister without taking any sample for analysis. 1077 a. According to the analyst's report, you say in your references that No. 16 sample was two large pieces of coal from Ralph's Mine : did you get those out of the coal-scuttle ?—-No, I am not a professor ; I asked permission from the company's chief clerk to get them. They were obtained out of the bin at Ralph's shaft. 1078. You cannot swear that they came out of Ralph's Mine ? —They were from Ralph's Mine bins, which contain only coal from Ralph's Mine. 1079. You told us that in Mr. Alison's presence you made a rough test ?— Yes ; 1 took a match and dropped some of the coaldust on to it. The whole of it went off like gunpowder. 1080. That was the first indication that you had of this dust being so explosive ?— Yes : its inflammability astonished me. 1081. So that the latent power in this dust has remained concealed until the explosion took place ? —The excessive inflammability was unknown to us before the explosion. We gave it credit for beingordinary dust, but it is much more dangerous. And, of course, to Mr. Fletcher and everybody else in connection with the company its true nature was not known. 1082. We have had some big figures from you ; you said you measured hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of gaseous mixture in the bords near Martin's body ?— For certain, 350,000 cubic feet in the locality I measured it to my satisfaction. 1083. Is it a question of measurement or opinion ?—lt is a satisfactory estimate, to my mind. 1084. Is it by measurement or opinion ?- Measurement. 1085. You say you call it measurement. Why do you call it measurement ? Did you actually measure anything ?—lf you will allow me to explain, I will do so. 1086. Did you measure anything ?—I measured upon the plan the lengths of the bords, and then took samples which proved to me that this gaseous mixture was continued up the bords to their dead ends. 1087. That is what you mean when you say you measured ? —Yes; I measured 40 chains of bords containing gaseous mixture—bords averaging 10ft. high by 14ft. wide; that comes to about 350,000 cubic feet. I " For certain," because there was some ventilation ? I believe, as a matter of fact, there was nearer 500,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture emitted. 1088. Do you mean 500,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture ?— Yes ; 10 per cent, of gas. That is the most explosive mixture. 1089. You had this analysed, and you said there was no afterdamp in any appreciable quantity : what do you mean by appreciable quantity '—There was no carbon dioxide and no carbon monoxide in any serious quantity such as you expect in afterdamp. 1090. What do you deduce from those analyses ?—That there was ventilation in those places. Here is the analysis ; the afterdamp is a combination of gases given off after an explosion, CO, CO 2 , N. and possibly unconsumed CH 4 . The main constituent of afterdamp is carbon dioxide, that is CO,. In this analysis the CO 2 is really harmless. The highest quantity is 0-37. The afterdamp had apparently been carried out by some ventilation which had taken place. 1091. Is it heavier than air or lighter ?—lt is one and a half times heavier. 1092. Is it not a fact that it is usually difficult to get any appreciable quantity of afterdamp after an explosion ?—This was six days after. 1093. But it is usually impossible to get afterdamp immediately after an explosion ?—No, it kills on an average 80 per cent, of the men who die by colliery explosions. 1094. I think you admitted to Mr. Napier that so far as Martin was concerned there is no evidence of burning ?—No, it was an extraordinary thing that Martin's hair even, according to the doctor, was not burned, and the upper portion of his body was not injured ; but his intestines were burned, and the lower limbs were also burned and fractured. 1095. This is what the doctor said of Martin : " This man had a compound fracture of the skull —a piece of coal was driven into it: there were compound fractures of both legs below the knee : There was a fracture of the left femur in the middle third ; the body was devoid of clothing ; there was a fracture of the left side of ilium : the intestines were exposed and charred ; death was due to violence." If there had been, as you suggest, 68,000 cubic feet of gas round about there which had ignited and exploded, would not Martin's body have been charred to a cinder ?—There is no evidence against my theory. I would like to explain to you the phenomenon. The gas at that point may have been so extremely high in proportion to oxygen that the explosion was only a feeble one at that point.
C—l 4.
F. REED.]
131
That is one reason, and another is this : There might have been so much CO., generated as to prevent the subsequent flame injuring his body. C0 2 is a product of combustion. 1096. Would that be the case with the man who ignites the gas ?■■ Yes, it is possible that he was in such a high proportion of gas that the flame might pass on its way, and much of the gas round about him might have been inexplosive owing to absence of oxygen. 1097. The actual flame was produced by his lamp ?—And that flame round about his body might have been limited in extent owing to the necessary proportions not being there on account of the surplus of CO 2 subsequently, or CH 4 at the time of ignition, the conditions might thus have not been favourable to complete combustion ; this would result in his body being somewhat protected. At Kaitangata Colliery they always confine blackdamp within stoppings, and although there is CH 4 on the roof there is no explosion owing to the quantity of blaokdamp present. 1098. But there was an explosion here ?-— The magnitude of it round about Martin's body nobody can tell. The state of destruction to a man's body is no indication of the origin of the explosion. 1099. Redmayne says, 1 understand, that you may have no evidence of force for 40 or 50 yards from the origin of the explosion. The force does assume great proportions, but he does not state the area of the burning ?- He says, " Little damage is done near the point of origin of the explosive flame, and for, say. 50 to 80 yards therefrom. Then great damage is evidenced. And after the cessation of the advancing explosion there is evidence of a ' backlash ' or rebounding force." 1100. That is force, not flame ?—No. 1101. So that that has not to be taken as governing the area of the flame ?—No. 1102. And you have not shown us anything which limits the action of the flame ?—lt is a problem which nobody can account for, and which of those conditions existed I am not able to say. 1103. Have you examined that bord for any distance ?— I have been up it four or five times. 1104. Did you find any evidence of burning in that bord ?• There is nothing to burn—it is all coal and stone. 1105. Would not the coaldust show any sign of flame ?—There was a film of soot, which was the result of the flame. Martin's coat was smoked and discoloured with soot, I think. 1106. Is it not the fact that you got a small injury near the part of origin, an indication that the amount of gas was small ?— Not a bit. 1107. Do you suggest that the whole of this 68,000 ft. was exploded ?- Yes. I say it was consumed or exploded by the original explosion and the backlash. 1108. Would not the force be terrific ?—And it was. 1109. How did we get anything of Martin's bod]' ?—lt was at the point of origin. It was thrown on the ground, and we know that a prostrate figure would not suffer as would a vertical obstruction to the force and backlash. Nevertheless, it had given him a tremendous smash and stoved in his head. Redmayne says that the force is small at the point of origin. 1110. That is because the quantity of gas was small ?—Not at all, Redmayne says nothing about that. 11.11. Would not the amount of gas which is present at the initial point make some difference in the amount of damage ?—lt must, to a certain extent. 1 112. If we find that the man's body at the point of ignition is not burned ?—But he was burned : his stomach was charred. The man was no doubt in a flame, but that flame did not last long; he would have been burned more seriously if it had lasted longer. 1113. You say that the amount of gas which is present, whether large or small, would have no appreciable difference in regard to the effect of the flame at the point of origin ?- -Within reasonable l.niits it would not. Taking the quantity of gas at, say, from 20,000 to 60,000 cubic feet. Ido not think there would be any difference in the condition of the corpse at the point of origin. 1114. If you found it tremendously charred ?—I would say that there was sufficient oxygen there to keep the flame going for a long time. 1115. If there had been less gas and more oxygen, you might have had a bigger flame at that point ? ■ —I do not know what the proportion would have been. 1116. But you have given us a certain quantity of gaseous mixture ; I ask you does not the fact that the body was not charred throw any light upon the quantity of gas present ?- Not a bit. 1117. And if you found the body -charred ?—No. 1118. And the fact that there is no evidence of burning in the bord ?—I saw a film of soot on the sides of the pillars. Where we found his coat I tried to mark the word " coat "on the coal, but the chalk would not write upon it owing to soot. 1119. If that was evidence of burning, would not there have been evidence of burning on that coat ? -I could not say there was any evidence of burning as it was so dirty when dug up. 1120. What do we gather about the lack of ventilation and as to the length of time the gas was there ? Do you suggest that those bords have been continually dangerous for any period before the explosion ? —There was a period during which they were dangerous-—before Martin was there. 1121. How long before the explosion?--! am unable to say. The gas did not come in there instantaneously. 1122. Why do you say it was not instantaneously ?—Gas never does come instantaneously. 1128. That was only 6,800 ft. of gas. Is that a large outburst ? Was it not quite possible for .6,800 cubic feet of gas to be given off at that point within, say, about an hour ?—Yes, it is possible for mines to give off gas at that rate. 1124. You will not say it is impossible in this mine ?—lt is difficult to say what is impossible. I 125. It is impossible in this mine ? —From my knowledge of the mine I think it is impossible. 1126. Is there anywhere else in the world a mine like this 1 It is unique. Is not the size of the seam unique I—Yes, but there are thick seams in other parts of the world.
C—l 4.
132
[f. reed.
1127. You admitted that it had not been shown yet definitely that gas is being produced at that old fall ?—lt is being emitted from the upper stratum above the old fall. 1128. That is your opinion ?—The exact locality has not been proved, and it may never be proved. 1129. It has never been proved whether it is an outburst or a blower ? —I believe that can only be found out by exploration. 1130. That is a matter of opinion ?■ —Yes. My opinion is sound ; it has proved itself to be sound in regard to this explosion, which.l foretold. This is an easier question than that. 1131. These bords are contained in the area in regard to which you say the plan indicates that the ventilation has short-circuited and that there is ample opportunity for gas to be accumulated ?—Just the place for an accumulation of firedamp. 1132. You are aware, at any rate, that within a fortnight previously men had been there with naked lights : did you hear Brownlie's evidence ?—No. 1133. He has said that on the previous Saturday fortnight he met Deputy Smith on the other side of that door in that section, not where the old fall is, but in the bord, taking rails through the door ? —Did he try the roof for gas ? 1134. At any rate, does not the fact that men working there with naked lights lifting rails indicate that there was some ventilation there ? —No, it does not. A man can work in stagnant air, with explosive gas on the roof above his head and not ignite it. 1135. But you said in these places there was no ventilation l . —l repeat that the plan shows this place to be a cul-de-sac; there was no means of directing the air through that cul-de-sac. 1136. Where did you go ?- —We walked round about this section. 1137. You did not explore thoroughly all the bords in that area marked with green ink ? —No ; but I explored bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 —the gaseous area. 1138. You are not able to say whether there was or was not any bratticing there '{- I found no brattice there, and your surveyor's plan shows no stoppings or no ventilation equipment of any kind within this area. The plan shows the air short-circuited. 1139. But you did not make an inspection of the whole area ?- -No, but the upper portion of it has no ventilation equipment at all. The lower portion I did not examine. 1140. So far as any ventilation appliances are concerned, you are basing your statement on the plan ? —And my own inspection. 1141. From you own inspection can you say that there were no ventilation appliances ?—Not as regards the whole section, but there was none in the upper portion. I can swear that I saw none. 1142. The whole gaseous zone ?—Above the level of Martin's body, in bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6, there was not the slightest indication of anything to direct the air to the dead ends. This portion which was filled with gaseous mixture was devoid of ventilation. 1143. Did you suggest that in order to test for gas a man should carry a glass I —No, but I say that for an expert to read minutely he should have a magnifying-glass. 1144. But it would not require a glass as good as yours ?—No, a glass worth 10s. would be quite sufficient. 1145. Now, as to your reasons for thinking there would be an explosion in the Taupiri Mine : when did you make that tabulation ?—When I heard of those explosions, in January, the reasons for fearing a disaster passed through my mind. 1146. Did you set them down anywhere in writing ? —No; that is, I did not write them down then. 1147. When did you first write them down ? —Before I came here —they were notes made by me yesterday morning to refresh my memory. 1148. They were not communicated to anybody until you gave them in evidence here ?—ln my letters I speak about some of the principal ones. 1149. They were not communicated to anybody otherwise than as they appear in your letters ? —No, it is not my business to create fears in the general public. 1150. On what evidence did you base your statement that we have a lot of men here inexperienced in testing gas ?—That is natural. When they come up for examination I have to demonstrate to them —to teach them how to read a gas-cap —before examining them. From my knowledge of the New-Zealand-born miners, I do not think many of them are skilled in gas-reading. 1151. Are you aware that all the deputies here were trained at Home ? —I do not know the experience of all the deputies here. 1152. You are not aware that some of them were trained in your own district, Durham ?—Some of them may be, but those men did not come to me for gas-testing certificates. 1153. But your statement is that these men are inexperienced all round, as far as gas is concerned ? —That is, generally. 1154. Then was that statement based on sufficient evidence ? —How could these New-Zealanders learn about gas. 1155. You made a statement which you afterwards had to qualify ?—1 altered the words " all round " to " generally." 1156. You do not get the whole facts ? —As many facts as I can get. 1157. You had no knowledge when you made that statement as to the qualifications of the deputies in the Taupiri Mine ?—I had reason to form an opinion as to their qualifications because only one of them had got his certificate up to March last; that was Young. 1158. But he was not a deputy ? -He was an assistant inspector of old workings. 1159. Did you know whether these men had been tested for gas ?—Considering that the gas-cap-observation machine I was using was the first introduced into the Dominion I naturally knew.
F. RESD.j
133
C—l 4.
1160. Had you any knowledge of the qualifications held by the deputies here for testing for gas ? -Not all. 1161. What right had you then to say that the company had no experienced men in regard to gas-testing ? —All the New Zealand collieries are the same. 1162. It was couched in general terms ?—lt was based upon my great knowledge of the miners of New Zealand. There were no possible means of learning about gas-testing here. There are from 140 to 150 collieries in this country, and in only two of them are the men likely to see firedamp—at Kaitangata and here. 1163. But if deputies had been trained at Home that would not apply to them ; you were not aware of that fact ?—No, I did not know what you state. 1164. You suggested that the company is putting in a new fan because the present one is insufficient ?—They have put in a fan at the Extended Mine which is four or five times as large as the present one at Ralph's, proving that the fan at Ralph's is insufficient. 1165. Cannot you allow in the size of the fan for future developments ?- Four or five times is a great difference ; the company would not sink its capital in such a fan if it were not necessary. 1166. If you were advising the company as to the size of the fan to put in, would you not make provision for a good long way ahead ?-—I would have installed a large fan at the start. 1167. The decision to install a large fan was arrived at long before the explosion ?—I do not know when it was arrived at. 1168. Do you not know that the decision to install a large fan was come to before the explosion ? —I did not know ; in fact, 1 do not know yet that such decision had been arrived at. 1169. You are aware that the new shaft has been sunk at Ralph's Mine ? —I have heard so. 1170. For the purpose of installing a new fan- -there is machinery being installed there ?- J am not aware of it. lam rather short-sighted, but tell me where it is. 1171. Were you not aware that new machinery was being erected at Ralph's Mine ?- I think the Inspector reported it, but I have not seen the new shaft. 1172. I do not think the machinery now being installed is the machinery for the new fan ? — Where abouts is this mysterious place ? 1173. Near the shaft ?—I do not know it. 1174. It is a proper thing to make provision for future developments by putting in a new fan ? -Yes, it is. Ido not think this disaster would have happened if you had had an efficient fan and adequate ventilation. 1175. In regard to Special Rule 1, which provides that the manager shall be responsible for the appointment of a sufficient number of competent persons to carry out the requirements of the Coalmines Acts and the special rules, and also to see that the working of the mine is carried on with all reasonable provisions for the safety of the .persons employed, do you know what number of persons the company employs ? -—No, but Mr. Fletcher has told me there are 160 in Ralph's Mine. 1176. Do you know what is the number of persons, such as deputies and so on, who are employed to see that the provisions of the Act are carried out ? —I do not know. 1177. You have no means of finding out how many men are employed in this mine ? As regards the number of officials, I do not know. 1178. When you were asked as to whether there was anything you could have done in order to remedy the state of things you knew to exist in this mine, I understood you to say that in regard to the Kaitangata Mine you thought certain tilings ought to be done respecting the explosives used ?— Yes, but not as regards explosives. 1179. What was the nature of your reference to Kaitangata ? Was it in regard to permitted explosives ?—No, it was as regards the dust—both at Kaitangata and Nightcaps. I have written to Mr. Green, Inspector of Mines, and he is sending samples of coaldust from both mines for analysis. 1180. Supposing you get them analysed, and find them dangerous, what are you going to do if the new Act is not in force ?- -We will have to do the best we can. 1181. Who ? -The Inspector of Mines and the Government. I am not a responsible official as far as the statutes are concerned. 1182. I understood you to say that if there is any point in regard to which an Inspector of Mines ought to take some action, you would call the attention of the Under-Secretary to it, and he could write to the Inspector, and that sometimes you draft the letters ?- When the Under-Secretary has asked me, yes. 1183. If you had gone to the Under-Secretary and said, "' I am in great trouble about the Taupiri mines. I think a letter ought to be written at once to Mr. Bennie, and he should immediately communicate to the manager what I have told you in regard to the condition of the mine," would not that have got such a letter written ?—I do not know. I wrote to Inspector Bennie as a personal friend would write, and why are you trying to belittle me for it ? 1184. I have given you full credit for what you have done. lam only suggesting that you could have carried it a little further ?■ -I suppose I should have taken a gun to him., 1185. Now, Mr. Reed, you have made a reference to the company not paying its debts. I would like to understand what you referred to ?—They were working under the river on Crown land. They had not got it on a proper lease. 1186. Are you referring to the case Mueller v. Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited) ? Are you aware that that is something like ten years ago ? —It might have been ten years ago. 1.187. Are you aware that it went to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the river-bed was Crown land ? —I do not know. 1188. Why do you make such statements as that the company is not paying its debts ?- It proved that you were taking something that did not belong to you.
C—l 4
134
Y. REED
1189. You charge the company with doing something which they were not entitled to do ?— 1 referred to the time when the company were taking Crown coal without payment of royalty. 1190. The question in dispute was as to whether the river-bed was Crown land or not, and the Court of Appeal decided it was Crown land. The company, after the decision, took out a lease and paid everything it was asked to pay ? —Because it was made to. 1191. We have had some remarks from you in regard to the question of permitted explosives ? —Yes. You are now using flame-producing explosives. .1.192. That explosive known as monobel ?—lt is not a Home Office permitted explosive. 1193. Do you know whether there is any permitted explosives in New Zealand at the present time ?—I am not aware. 1194. Do you know whether there are any permitted explosives in Australasia at the present time '. lam not aware. 1195. If the company has made inquiries and can get no permitted explosives in Australasia. do you say that it is the duty of the company to close down the Extended Mine ?- -Yes ; if I had the power I would close it down to-morrow, because you are risking the lives of your men in it. A blownout shot amongst that dust might create another holocaust, and 1 think the company ought to be ashamed to defy the Inspector's orders in this matter so shortly after a disastrous explosion. 1 L 96. Monobel was permitted to be used ?—-That is a misstatement. 1197. Did not Inspector Bennie give permission to use monobel ?■ In his first letter, no ; but then somebody came to him and misled him, and he added it to his list afterwards. They told him that monobel without the numeral was a permitted explosive. When I told him that he had been misled he altered the list by inserting " monobel No. .1 " in place of " monobel," that with the numeral being on the permitted list. 1198. Who do you say misled him ( —Somebody hoodwinked him. Some representative of your company deceived the Inspector. 1199. Are you quite sure that some representative of this company hoodwinked and deceived Mr. Bennie ?■ 1 was told by Mr. Bennie the name of the man. 1200. Are you quite sure that som representative of this company hoodwinked and deceived Mr. Bennie ? -I believe that he did, because I was told so by Mr. Bennie. 1201. What explosives are being used in the Kaitangata Mine ?—I do not know. 1202. Can you tell me what explosives are being used in the State mine ?—Blasting-powder, 1 think; but lam not quite sure. 1203. Is that still being used in the State mine ?—I am not sure. 1204. Have you taken any steps in regard to the State mine ?-- What steps do you suggest ? 1205. In regard to the explosives which are in use there ?- —None whatever at present. 1206. Then, perhaps you are aware that up to this time they are using blasting-powder'?- As far as lam aware. It is a wet mine. 1207. Does that make any difference ?—Quite a great deal as regards the dust problem. 1208. Is there any gas in that mine ?■— Occasionally, 1 believe, they find it. They use safety-lamps, so no doubt there is gas, though I have never seen it. 1209. It is a safety-lamp mine, and they are using blasting-powder ?- -It is a wet mine, and it is bituminous coal, the dust of which is not very inflammable. 1210. Are you satisfied that they should go on using blasting-powder ?—Until I make further investigations and can satisfy myself that it is not a dangerous mine, I think they can safely go on as they are for a time. 1211. Do you say it is a bituminous or semi-bituminous coal ? —ln my opinion, it is a bituminous coal; we class it as one. 1211 a. Is it a true bituminous coal ?—I think so; it has always been so classed in the statistics of the Mines Department, at all events. 12.12. What is the coal at Kaitangata ? —lt is a superior lignite. 1213. And you do not know what explosives they are using there ? —No. 1214. Assuming that they are using blasting-powder, do you propose to take any action >. I told you that the Inspector is sending samples of this coaldust to be tested, and investigations are being rapidly carried out, and upon the result of them depends what action will be taken. It is extremely probable that definite action will be taken. 1215. Has any notice been given to any of these people that this position was likely to arise ? I do not know. 1216. Have you made any inquiry as to whether there are any permitted explosives to be obtained in this Dominion ?— I only know from Mr. Leggo, who has disposed of monobel to the Taupiri Company. 1217. Do you suggest that it was he who misled the company ? —I understand that Mr. Bennie. Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Fletcher went to him, and he told them that monobel without the numeral was a permitted explosive, and they induced Mr. Bennie to add the word " monobel " to his list. His letter had been sent or delivered to the company, and it was returned to Mr. Bennie to add " monobel.'' Mr. Bennie, in his honest way, did so, and the company preceeded to work with it. I came upon the scene and saw Mr. Leggo, and asked him if the explosives they were using were monobel No. 1, and he nodded. The next day I searched the Home Office permitted list, and found that it did not include monobel, but only nronobel No. 1. That list was complete up to 1913. You will find that monobjl does not occur at all on the lists since 1912. When I discovered that it was monobel No. 1 which was on the list, and not monobel, which the company was using, I told Mr. Bennie that he had been deceived. He then drafted a letter to the company stating that monobel No. 1 was the only monobel which was on the permitted list. Mr. Bennie was deceived by these two gentlemen, and I was, perhaps unintentionally, deceived by Mr. Leggo, who is the agent for Nobel's Limited. Monobel is not permitted in England,
F. REED. I
135
C—l 4.
as it is a flame-producing explosive, and this company nas purchased this uupermitted explosive to the danger of the lives of the miners. 1218. Are you finished ? I have told the truth. 1219. Now, do I understand you to say that Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Bishop said to Mr. Bennie that monobel without the numeral was a permitted explosive ?—Mr. Bennie informed me so. He stated that there was no numeral mentioned. 1220. But they did not say to him, " Monobel without the numeral is a permitted explosive " ] —No ; I have no doubt that they took care not to use the word " numeral." 1221. Are you a thought-reader ?- No, but one would wish to be when that sort of thing is being done. J 222. If you were, as you say, informed by Mr. Leggo that monobel was a permitted explosive, do you not think it is quite possible that he informed Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Bishop to the same effect ? -I do not know what he told them. 1223. You were misled, were you not, by Mr. Leggo ?— Yes, at first. 1224. Is it not possible, therefore, that they were also misled ?—You are assuming too much. 1225. By Mr. Leggo, intentionally or unintentionally ?—I do not know. It depended upon their object. They were not likely to be both misled. 1226. How did it come about that you were misled ?—I was misled in this manner :He informed me at night that the company was using monobe! No. 1, but in the morning I was informed otherwise. 1227. '" This is another performance of the company." Will you kindly say what are the other performances of the company ?-—Working the Taupiri Extended with monobel, which is not a permitted explosive, and after receipt of a notice from the Inspector that only Home Office permitted explosives must be used. 1228. These are not specified performances ?—Yes. 1229. Well, then, I want to assume that we cannot get a permitted explosive in the Dominion : are you going to close down all the mines in the Dominion ?—I would close down all those which are gas-producing and dangerous from coaldust. If human life is at stake, as it is here, I would close down every such mine until precautionary measures are established. 1230. Are you going to say that blasting-powder can still be used in mines in New Zealand ?— If a mine is not suspected to be dangerous owing to gas and dust, and is a naked-light mine, I would permit the use of blasting-powder if I had power. 1231. Is this the only mine at the present time in which permitted explosives only are to be used ? This is the first. The Department is dealing with this company first, but the Department is getting on to the others as fast as possible. The Inspectors are vigilantly searching for dangerous conditions. The new Bill is on the verge of becoming an Act, and the Department is losing no time. ■ 1232. So far as this company is concerned, you are not waiting for the Bill to become an Act ?— No. The Inspector is taking this action against you under section 56. 1233. If it applies to this company, does it not also apply to every other mine in New Zealand ?— Directly the Department finds them taking risks. 1234. Are you going to wait for some explosions in the other mines ?—No, the Inspectors are sending the dust for analysis immediately. 1235. Are you waiting for analyses before you take any action ?■—Yes, the Department must experiment with the dust. The Inspectors of Mines are acting. 1236. Is it not a fact that monobel has been largely used in New Zealand ?■—lt may have been largely used in New Zealand. 1237. Do you know that it is so ? No, Ido not know it is so. It may have been. I will not dispute your word if you say it is. 1238. Is it not your business to know ?—No, it is not my business to know the quantities and varieties of all explosives that are being used in New Zealand. 1239. Is it largely used in New Zealand ? Ido not know. There is an Inspector of Explosives, who has charge of that department; you may inquire from him. 1240. Are you acting in conjunction with the Inspector of Explosives now ?—I am not acting in conjunction with anybody. 1241. What has he got to do with your knowledge of what explosives are being used in coal-mines ? —Nothing whatever. 1242. Do you mean to tell me that you are not aware of what explosives are used ?—I know what explosives are used, but I do not know the quantities. 1243. Did you know that monobel was being used in New Zealand ? —I did. 1244. What other explosive ?•- -Blasting-powder. 1245. What else 1 -I believe gelignite is being used in New Zealand, but the quantities I do not know. 1246. I may take it, so far as you are concerned, that the only thing the company can do is to close down the mine until they can get permitted explosives ?—I am not the Inspector of Mines for this district; he only can close the mine. 1247. That is your opinion ?.—lf I were Inspector of Mines T would close the mine until a safe explosive was obtained. 1248. Although a permitted explosive is not to be got in the Dominion and safety-lamps are beiiig used ?—I do not know that. 1249. Would you take into account, if you were Inspector of Mines, the fact that permitted explosives could not be got in the Dominion, in dealing with this mine ?—No, I would prefer the safety of human life rather than let the company receive the profit from a month's work at the risk of their employees' lives.
C— l 4
136
F. REED
1250. They were cabled for a fortnight ago ?—But Mr. James Bishop has been employed by your company for the last fortnight. He told me the matter was going to arbitration, so that does not look as though the company had cabled. 1251. I presume you will admit that it takes a little time to get explosives if they are not in the Dominion ? —Naturally. 1252. And you realize of course that the miners will be out of work in the meantime ?—I realize that the safety of the miners' lives is our first consideration. 1253. You realize that the men will be out of work ?—lt is better to be out of work than dead. 1254. So that it is not only the question of the company's profits and the month's coal ?—I think I have already given you my answer to that— human life in preference to profits. 1255. Why was it necessary to introduce any references of a particularly offensive character in respect to the company's profits ? —ln the interest of truth and justice. 1256. What has it got to do with truth and justice ?—Everything, in my opinion. 1257. Now, I want to ask you a particular question : you have known Mr. Fletcher for some time ?—Yes, for eight or nine years. 1.258. You knew him as manager of the State mine at Seddonville ?—Yes. 1259. He was under you there, was he not ?—Well, I was consulting engineer ; he was minemanager. 1260. And supposing he had remained in the service of the State, was there any prospects, so far as knew, for him with his abilities ?—Yes, he was a man that I always respected, and he did his duty well for the Government. 1261. Has he all the qualifications necessary for a successful colliery manager ?—Mr. Fletcher lias been surveyor at Millerton, and for a non-gaseous mine like that at Seddonville he was a good manager. Ido not know whether he has sufficient experience in gaseous or dangerous mines. 1262. Have you any reason to doubt his integrity ? —No, 1 have no reason to doubt his integrity. 1263. You realize that Mr. Fletcher is in charge of the technical work of this company ?—Yes, he is in charge of the mine, but I think Mr. H. A. Gordon is consulting engineer above him. 1264. And that if the company has been guilty of deception, or of any other performance, as you designate it, he is responsible. The company itself does not conceal or do anything ;it can only act through its agents ?—lt has neither body nor soul. 1265. Do you suggest that Mr. Fletcher has been guilty of all these things, as representing the company ? —Apparently he has, as representing the company. My good opinion of him was formed in the past. 1266. You say that Mr. Fletcher has apparently done these things ?—That is my opinion. 1267. You say that Mr. Fletcher has had no experience of a dangerous mine ?—To my knowledge. He is only a young man, and has been in this country many years, so that he must have been only a youth when he came Ijere. He got his certificate here, and if he came from another part I think he would be but a youth when he arrived. 1268. Do you suggest that Mr. Fletcher has not acted according to his knowledge and judgment as manager of this company's mine ?—I do not like to suggest anything. 1269. You have been making the most astonishing statements in regard to the Taupiri Coal-mine and the company ?—I have stated facts. 1270. That is a matter of opinion, and it is not for you to decide ; you have made extraordinary statements, and I want to support those statements ?—I have told you about the explosives and monobel. 1271. Do you suggest that Mr. Fletcher has not exercised his knowledge and ability with the best intentions ?—I cannot say whether he has exercised it to the best of his knowledge and ability. 1272. Have you any opinion ?■—l would sooner not express an opinion. It is for the Commission to judge of certain persons' characters and abilities. I have given the facts ; let the Commission determine whether those people are culpable or not. 1273. You have made these wild statements about the company ?- They are not wild ; they are true. 1274. Upon what evidence have you based these statements ?—Which statements do you specially allude to ? , . 1275. The statement that the company was guilty of concealing ?—The company is responsible for the acts of its agent or manager. 1276. And you have shown that its agent or manager did not report two cases, but which cases were open to the Inspector ?—Yes. 1277. Do you still say that the company was guilty of the offence of concealing those two cases ? —Yes. 1278. You do not allow Mr. Fletcher to have any opinion as to what is a proper case to report under section 62 ?- -Yes ;it must be a serious case. I consider these serious accidents. 1279. If Mr. Fletcher, according to his ability, considers them not serious, and does not report them, do you still say that he was guilty of concealing ?—Yes. 1280. Notwithstanding that he honestly exercised his judgment in the matter ?—Yes, I say he was guilty of concealing. 1281. Is it usual for the Inspectors to institute prosecutions without the authority of the Department 1. No, they write to the Under-Secretary for authority to prosecute and to employ a solicitor. The Government pays the solicitor. 1282. In regard to the prosecution of the manager, you will remember that Mr. Bennie, in his letter of the 7th August to the Under-Secretary, says, " I may fail to get a conviction, but the moral effect of such a prosecution will be to produce a more effective supervision the value of which we cannot
137
a—l 4
F. REED
foresee." You gather from that that Mr. Bennie was prepared to prosecute whether he succeeded or not ?—Yes ; but there is a subsequent memo, from Mr. Bennie in which he said, " I see no good purpose in prosecuting." 1283. You will also remember that in your memo, you recommend that Mr. Bennie should consult a reliable solicitor, and " If we are considered by him to have a fair chance to secure a conviction, proceedings should be taken " ?—That is so. 1284. So that your recommendation was only to prosecute in case you were considered to have a fair chance of securing a conviction ?—That was my final opinion ; but I was not the final arbiter. Mr. Macassey : The Minister approved a prosecution in terms of Mr. Heed's recommendation, and Mr. Bennie took the opinion of Mr. Miller, which has been read to the Commissioners, in which he said there was no reasonable grounds for apprehending firedamp. Mr. Bennie reported to the Under-Secre-tary the trend of that opinion in his letter of the 2nd September, and added that he had decided, after careful consideration, that no good purpose could be served by a prosecution. With his letter he enclosed a copy of Mr. Miller's opinion. That was sent to Mr. Eeed for his information by the Undersecretary on tlie Bth September, and noted by Mr. Reed on the following Three days afterwards the accident happened, and the first intimation the Department received of it was a telegram from Mr. Bennies clerk as follows : " Manager, Taupiri Collieries advises explosion Ralph's Mine about 7.30 this morning. No particulars to hand, but stated to be serious. Inspector left for Huntly by first train this morning." Mr. Blow sent this on to the Minister on. the same day, with the following minute : " The above is the only intimation so far received, but doubtless Mr. Bennie will wire a further report after he reaches Huntly." This shows that the fears of the Inspecting Engineer were well grounded, and points to the urgent necessity for proceeding with the Coal-mines Amendment Bill. Please see Mr. Reed's minute on mines, 14/188, herewith. In addition to this, you will recollect that 1 sent you a special memorandum from Mr. Reed a few days ago." Then there is the following minute under that from the Minister of Mines : " I presume you refer to the memos. from Mr. Reed dated the 18th August, covered by your memo, to me of the 27th August. Mr. Reed's memo, was dated three days after my approval was given to prosecute Huntly Company if they declined to use safety-lamps. I was unaware until after the accident happened that this instruction of mine had not been acted on.:— W.F., 16/9/14." 1285. [Mr. Tunks.] My only point was that your memo., Mr. Reed, differed from Mr. Bennies letter in this respect: that you suggested a prosecution only in case the solicitor considered there was a fair chance of securing a conviction ?—Mr. Bennies subsequent letter stated, " I see no good reason in prosecuting," knowing perhaps that the amending Bill was ready for the House. 1286. There is another " performance " which must be cleared up. Some reference was made to Special Rule 3 in regard to ventilation, and you said to Mr. Napier that we had " avoided alluding to it " ?—So far you had not alluded to it, and I think you have done so because it hits you hard. 1287. Where did we avoid alluding to it ?—At the inquest and here while I have been in the room. It is such an important thing because it bears upon the ventilation of your mines. 1288. You say we have avoided alluding to it; when was there any opportunity of alluding to it ?—We have been talking ventilation and gases all the time ; there was every opportunity to refer to Special Rule 3. 1289. If the manager differs from you, and considers that the ventilation is adequate, why should he allude to it ?—Because this inquiry is appointed to consider all such things ; also because this is an impartial inquiry to consider certain things, and your company's solicitors have been going through the Act and examining me on many sections, but avoiding Special Rule 3 ; and that rule is most pertinent. 1290. The solicitors have examined you on every section, and avoided that one ? Who is acting for the company ?—I do not know ; there are two or more of you, apparently. 1291. Are you stating the truth—that you do not know who is acting for the company ? I believe you, for one, represent the company. 1.292. Do you ever read the papers ?—The preliminary portion about the solicitors I have never read yet. 1293. You are a singularly unintelligent person ? —Why should I want to know about lawyers. 1294. lam acting for the company ?—I thought so. 1295. Until you were in the box, and I rose this afternoon to cross-examine you, when had I an opportunity of cross-examining you before in regard to Special Rule 3 ? —You had no opportunity previously. 1296. You say the company avoided alluding to this rule in the examination of you ?■—l said throughout the whole inquiry it had been avoided. 1297. Will you withdraw that so far as the solicitor for the company is concerned ? —I will. Upon my word, I never knew which of you was the actual solicitor for the company. 1298. Then the statement which you made, that you always get informed of the facts before making your judgment, was not correct ?—ln that matter apparently it wasfnot; but it appeared to me that there was more.than one solicitor here acting for the company. 1299. I have asked you, so far as the company was concerned, when its solicitor had an opportunity of examining you upon this matter. Why should the company have tendered any evidence or said anything about it ?—I was not aware|which of youfrepresented the company and which represented Mr. Ralph, who is a director of the company. 1300. What steps do you suggest should be taken to deal with the dangerous dust in this mine ?— It is a very difficult problem. I have not yet thought it out thoroughly. 1301. You admit it is a. very difficult problem ?—I do.
18—C. 14.
138
C—l 4.
[f. reed.
1302. And you yourself are not prepared at the present moment to make a pronouncement upon it % —Not a complete pronouncement, without full consideration. 1303. Then, I suppose I may take it that you do not suggest that Mr. Fletcher should have made any pronouncement upon it or done anything very definite ? —He is the responsible man. 1304. But lam asking you the question ?—I hope he is getting to work very quickly. It is not for me to suggest the best methods. If I make an impromptu suggestion without mature consideration it will go down in print, and I do not desire that. 1305. I understand that you have been considering this question ?—lt is a peculiar case. I would have to examine your old workings to see how much dust was created, and then as to whether your roofs and sides would be effected by watering. Altogether there is such a variety of phases of the matter that to venture an opinion prematurely would not be wise. 1306. Is there any provision in the new Bill which enables you to deal with the question of inert dust ? —I do not know, but I think there is. There is a section empowering regulations to be drawn up dealing with the allaying of dust. 1307. Were you present when I read the report of this New South Wales Commission of Inquiry as to the best methods to be adopted to remove dust or to render it innocuous ?— No, 1 was not present. 1308. This is the paragraph to which I refer : " Having regard, however, to the enormous extent of the roadways and working-places of a modern colliery, the increasing depth of cover, and in some cases the temperature of the strata, it is not, in our opinion, practicable to maintain a dusty mine throughout all its ramifications in a constant state of safety in relation to coaldust explosions. We emphatically recommend, therefore, a remedy such as stone-dusting of a permanent character in preference to watering, which by evaporation may become useless within a few hours if not renewed. In no case within our experience where the seam is dry and dusty have we observed any mine so thoroughly treated by watering as to prevent a coaldust explosion being carried through the workings ; and while thorough treatment by watering would undoubtedly ultimately arrest an explosion, the impracticability of doing so is fully recognized by many authorities ; and, in effect, therefore, to look upon watering alone as a remedy for coaldust explosions is to lean upon a broken reed." Do you agree with that ? —lt seems sound and logical, and in accordance with accepted opinion. 1309. Your Bill is a little bit defective in regard to coaldust ?■■ No, there is provision in section 8 providing for regulations dealing with certain matters. We can make provision in the regulations, I think, regarding stone-dust and watering. 1310. Can you suggest any dust which can be obtained that is innocuous to breathe ?—Yes, 1 have had a good deal of experience regarding miners' phthisis (pneumoconiosis). If you could get indurated shale or fireclay it would serve as a perfectly safe dust. I wrote that portion of the Royal Commission's report which deals with miners' phthisis. Quartz-dust is most injurious to the lungs, and anthracite coaldust is also harmful, but the clay or shale dust is practically harmless. 1311 Have you had any analyses made of that fireclay dust ? —No, but lam taking two samples to Wellington with me for analysis. 1312. Have you known of a jet of water being used in connection with coal-cutting machines ?— Not with coal-cutting machines, but with rock-drills in quartz-mines. 1313. Is there any means of learning the testing of gas in Huntly ? —The Department has obtained for the Huntly School of Mines a Hailwood gas-testing apparatus, but the difficulty is in getting town gas at Huntly. lam inquiring whether compressed gas can be brought here, but lam afraid it is difficult to obtain. The Railway Department only have a compressor for filling cylinders. When you are ready in Huntly for the machine it will be sent to you. They are installed at the Thames, Whangarei, Westport, Greymouth, Invercargill, and at Wellington. 1314. Do I understand that while the machine is available there is a difficulty in regard to gas ? —Yes, but we may be able to get it in cylinders. Immediately you get your gas-supply here the Department will do the rest. 1314 a. Further, in regard to this Coal-mines Bill, in clause 6 there is a provision for official inquiries in regard to accidents ; the Court is to consist of a Warden and two assessors. Do you object to that % —-It depends upon the two assessors. 1315. One is to be an experienced miner and the other a mine-manager ; that Court would have the power to deprive the manager of, a mine of his certificate ?—Yes. 1316. This is a matter upon which perhaps you can express an opinion. Do you think that a tribunal is satisfactory which consists of one certificated mine-manager, an experienced miner, and a Warden, which can sit in judgment on a manager, and possibly take away his certificate ? The Warden has the privilege of the casting-vote. I think the tribunal is a competent one. Who selects the two assessors ? 1317. The Warden ?— Then I think it will be satisfactory. 1318. Do you suggest that a miner, however experienced, should have the power to take away the certificate of a mine-manager and to sit in judgment upon him ?—I do, under the conditions previously stated. 1319. That does not happen at a nautical inquiry. There you have a Magistrate sitting with two assessors, both of whom are certificated officers ?—Yes. 1320. You are putting yourself in the same position as would obtain if a Magistrate, an experienced A.8., and an officer were allowed to cancel the certificate of a captain of a ship. lam suggesting that the proposed tribunal is not a fair one ?—I think it is fair if we can have a Warden such as we have here to-day. If the Warden chooses the assessors you may be assured they will be suitable men. 1321. Then it depends upon the choice of the Warden ?- Yes. 1322. And if the Warden is able to constitute a good Court you think the tribunal is a fair one ? —It would be fair enough for me if I were on trial.
F. REED.]
139
C—l 4.
1323. You would be prepared for your certificate to be dealt with by a Warden (anon-professional man in mining matters), a miner, and a mine-manager, the miner having no diploma or certificate of any kind ?—Why do you assume that a miner has no credentials ? 1324. But this Bill presumes that he is only an experienced miner ?—But the Warden would take into account the miner's experience. lam perfectly satisfied with the tribunal provided by this Bill. 1325. And you would be satisfied to have your certificate cancelled in that way ?— Yes, I would be perfectly satisfied that 1 would get fair-play. 1326. I want to direct your attention to clause 7, subsection (j), page 9, in the new Bill. Subclause (6), which allows the check inspectors to make an inspection once at least in every fortnight. The English Act allows such an inspection to be made once a month. Do you not think that is sufficient ?—I would let them make it as often as they liked. I think they do good rather than harm. They relieve the Mines Department and the management of responsibility. 1327. That is looking at it from the point of view of the Mines Department ?—ld the interests of human life. 1328. In the interests of the Mines Department ?—That is one side of the question also. 1329. I want you to consider the side of the colliery-owner : do you not think once a month is enough to have these inspections made ?- If I were a manager I would like them to come round every day, so long as they caused no hinderance. The present Act states once a month, and the English Act states once a month. The Royal Commission here considered it more suitable to have these inspections made once a fortnight if necessary, and as a member of that Royal Commission I support the proposal. 1330. They are required to make their report within twenty-four hours from making their inspection. The English Act says they shall make their report forthwith. Do you not think that is better ?- -There is no reason why they should not make their report before they leave the mine ?— Exactly, and I think that should be done. 1331. Will you please refer to page 5 of the Bill, section 7, clause 1 (d) : " The total number of men ordinarily employed in any ventilating district shall not, without the consent in writing of the Inspector, exceed fifty at airy one time, and in no case shall the number exceed seventy." I understand that the British Act gives the maximum as seventy-five ?— I approve of seventy. 1332. Seventy as a minimum or seventy as a maximum ?■ —Maximum. 1333. Do you not think that fifty is very low— for which the Inspector's consent is necessary ?— It will not be very often required, and the Inspectors are reasonable men. 1334. 1 understand there are-likely to be difficulties- supposing the Inspector is away. Is there any harm in raising the limit slightly ?- Personally, I think seventy is reasonable. Ido not think it is a very serious matter, and I believe that you would not find the Inspector unreasonable. 1335. But he might be absent, and it might result in hampering the working of the mine. Why should not the English Act be followed ? —lt is a very small matter. 1336. Now, Mr. Reed, will you look at section 9 of the Bill, which authorizes the making of additional rules ?—The present Act also provides for additional rules. 1337. This Bill makes provision for a committee to make additional rules for any mine. That committee is to consist of the mine-manager, a representative of the workmen, and the Inspector. Do you not think that that is an improper position to place the Inspector in ?—1 think that section is satisfactory ; it was a recommendation of the Royal Commission. 1338. You approve of the Inspector being on that committee ?—Yes, he occupies an impartial position. 1.339. If the Inspector is to be the suggestor of special rules, and if he has some special rule which he wishes to introduce into any mine, then he is not an impartial person on that committee. He cannot be impartial, because he is setting forward a special rule for adoption ?—He is impartial because he is neither interested as a capitalist nor as a workman. That is what 1 mean by impartial. 1340. But those rules of his may or may not be impartial ?—ls there any appeal ? I think that Board is properly constituted. 1341. Yes, the Minister has the right of veto in regard to those rules ?—There is no appeal to another Court. 1342. Would not an experienced Warden be a more suitable person than the Inspector to be on that committee ?—Not in that capacity. It is a technical committee as regards mining, where judicial knowledge is not so important. 1343. But as to the determination of whether a man should lose his certificate or not ?—We are referring now to additional special rules. 1344. But the trial may depend upon technical evidence ?—But this is to determine workingconditions. I think the committee is excellent. 1345. 1 want to show you that if an Inspector is endeavouring to get certain special rules introduced into a mine, he is not an impartial person on that committee, because he goes there with his mind made up that those certain rules should be introduced ?—No, he puts them on the table for discussion. I often bring up matters before my colleagues on a Board, to hear what they have to say. Ido not think he ceases to be impartial because he tables certain suggested rules. 1346. Will you admit that there may be circumstances in which he is not an impartial judge ?— Quite possibly. 1347. Would it not be better to appoint a Warden instead of an Inspector ?—No. 1348. You take the risk of having your Inspector acting in an impartial manner ?—There is a very remote risk. 1349. You are prepared to take that risk ?—Yes, that very remote risk.
0.—14.
140
[p. REED.
1350. Re Special Rule No. 3 in the schedule to the Bill, on page 15 : '' A backstay or trailer shall be attached to each ascending tub, or set of tubs, on every inclined haulage road where mechanical haulage other than endless rope or chain is used." The ascending tubs are the empty ones ?—Yes. 1351. The idea is to stop that tub incase of a breakage. What to happen to the full tub ? —A trailer would be useless to it, but one would Jsave the empty tub. If you have two horses bolting it is better to save one than lose both. I think the section is plain enough. 1352. What do you understand by an inclined haulage-road ? Does that include a main jig ?— I take it that it applies to a jig. 1353. And you are quite satisfied that the section is all right ?—lt saves the empties, but you may not be able to save the others. It may also save life. 1354. It could have no possible effect on a full truck ?—Not a bit, as the full track or tub is descending the incline. 1355. And a full truck can go out and you cannot stop it ?—No. 1356. Mr. Macassey.] Will you define the duties and responsibilities of an Inspector of Mines. 1 think that was laid down by the British Royal Commission on Mines, 1906. Will you please read it ?— This is the report of the British Royal Commission on Mines, 1906 (page 38). I may say this is the highest authority as regards coal-mining. All the modern coal-mining Acts of the British dominions are framed more or less upon its recommendations. " Inspections by Firemen and Deputies, and Inspection of Mines.—The responsibility for the supervision of men underground rests with the manager and under-manager and the various grades of subordinate officials. As the conditions of a mine from the point of view of safety may vary every hour, the principle of systematic inspection is a most necessary one, and this is entrusted principally to the important class of officials known as firemen or deputies (in South Wales also called examiners). The inspections made by these officials are to be sharply distinguished from those made by the Government Inspectors, who are appointed to see that the Acts and rules are being observed by the owners and management, or from the periodical inspections made by the men under General Rule 38, in order to satisfy themselves that the conditions prevailing in a particular mine are such as to ensure their safety. The direct responsibility for the safety of the mine is placed not on the Government, but on the owners and the management, who have to see that the systematic inspection by firemen is properly carried out." That is the highest authority on that subject. 1357. That means that the duties of the Inspector are confined to seeing that the Act and regulations are observed ? —Yes. 1358. It is not the duty of the Inspector to direct as to how the mining operations are to be carried on ?—No. 1359. You know Mr. Bennie, Inspector of Mines ?—Yes. 1360. I think he won the gold medal at the Waihi School of Mines ?—He did. 1361. He is a very experienced man in mining matters ?—Yes. 1362. He has had some forty-seven years both coal- and gold-mining in England, Scotland, Australia, and New Zealand ?—Yes. 1363. And would you describe him, Mr. Reed, as a very careful and capable Inspector of Mines ? —Yes. 1364. And an Inspector who diligently performs his duties as far as you are aware ?—Yes. 1365. And you have no reason to think that his reports are not true and faithfully written ?—No. 1366. It is his duty to receive directions from the Under-Secretary, and to report to the Undersecretary ?—Yes. 1367. And I think that he makes a monthly report to the Under-Secretary for Mines in regard to his visits to the various mines under his jurisdiction ?—Yes. 1368. And you see his reports as they come to hand at the Head Office ?—I believe so. 1369. He has reported every month as to the conditions existing in the Taupiri mines ?—Yes, recently. 1370. I think he has only reported in regard to Ralph's Mine one case of burning by gas—Kelly's case ?—Yes, as far as I am aware. 1371. He has reported also that he found small accumulations of gas in the old workings ? —Yes. 1372. He never found any accumulations in the existing workings ?—Perhaps so. 1373. And you believe him ?—Yes. 1374. And whatever small accumulations he found in the old workings were cleared away ?—1 d<> not know that. He said the Inspectors took a week to go round the old workings. 1375. You think he has reported truthfully everything that he has found I—Yes. 1376. Letters have been put in which show Mr. Bennies recommendations in regard to Ralph's Mine, and his suggestions in regard to the appointment of shot-firers and the watering of the coaldust ? —They are very wise recommendations. He did these things on his own account, without any suggestion from me or anybody else, as far as I am aware. 1377. I want to clear up this official file. The Under-Secretary wrote to Mr. Bennie for a report, on 4th August, as per the letter which has already been put in and quoted. Mr. Bennie in reply, under date 7th August (in a memorandum which has already been put in and quoted in full), stated that he could not recommend that safety-lamps only should be used in these mines for two reasons which he sets out in full. That was, of course, before it was ascertained how highly inflammable the coaldust in the mine was ?—That is true. 1378. That letter was referred to you by the Under-Secretary for Mines, and you recommended that Inspector Bennie should be authorized to consult a reliable solicitor, and if the Department was considered to have a fair chance of securing a conviction proceedings were to be instituted, and you would go north to assist the Inspector ?—Yes.
C—l 4
F. REED
141
1379. He recommended a prosecution whether it failed or not. The matter was referred to you, and you advised that an opinion be obtained ?—Yes, likewise a prosecution, in the first part of that letter, which you have omitted to read. 1380. So that Inspector Bennies instructions were to consult a reliable solicitor, and in the event of the opinion being favourable to the Department's chance of securing a conviction, proceedings were to be taken ? —Yes. 1381. He obtained a solicitor's opinion, and was advised that a prosecution would not be successful. Mr. Bennie performed his duty and carried out all his instructions ?—Yes, and reported that no good purpose would be served by a prosecution. 1382. He showed you the solicitor's opinion I—He1 —He put it on the table in his office, but I did not have time to read it. We were very busy on other matters. 1383. His recollection is that he handed it to you ?—Yes. 1384. Mr. Bennie would not be aware of the letters which you wrote to the Under-Secretary in connection with this mine ? —I do not know, unless they were sent to him by the Under-Secretary. In the ordinary course of his duty he would not see them. 1385. You arranged with him to visit the Taupiri Mine about the sth September ?- 1 do not remember. We were talking about the visit, but it did not come off because I was summoned to Ureymoutli by telegram. I arrived there on the 10th September, two days before the disaster at Huntly. 1386. You were at the Thames on the sth September, and were called away ? —Yes. 1387. The Chairman (at the request of Mr. Napier).] Did you see the legal opinion when you were in the Inspector's office at the Thames ?—I am not sure. My recollection is that I first saw it on Wednesday, the 9th, just before I left for Greymouth, when it was sent to me by the Under-Secretary in Wellington. If Mr. Bennie says that he showed it to me when I was in his office at the Thames on the sth September, it was not read by me. 1 cannot recollect it. 1388. Mr. JJowgray.] Did you give evidence at the inquest I —l was never asked to give evidence at the inquest. People appeared to shun the subject of my giving evidence at the inquest. 1.389. You stated that the Inspector of Mines had ordered the company to install safety-lamps; did the Inspector of Mines get his instructions from the Minister ?—I do not know. 1390. Since the disaster there have been instructions given to the company to install safetylamps ? —Yes, I understand so. Mr. Macassey: The Minister gave the Inspector of Mines instructions to that effect when he was here, and the Inspector ordered the company to install the lamps accordingly. 1391. Mr. Dowgray.] I know there was a statement made by the Minister that he had given instructions to this company that they were to use safety-lamps. I wanted to know whether Mr. Reed knew that the company had been instructed to use safety-lamps and permitted explosives ?—I did not associate in the instructions permitted explosives with safety-lamps. The newspaper in which I read of it stated " safety-lamps," and I understood it to be safety-lamps only. 1392. Mr. Brown.] I would like to draw your attention again to section 48 (b) of the Bill, in regard to the appointment of workmen's inspectors : do you not think that these men should have at least five years' underground experience ?—I think it would be better if experienced men were appointed, though I take it that the unions would not appoint inexperienced men. 1393. It has been brought under my notice that young men of limited experience have been appointed as workmen's inspectors, and I think you will agree that they should have at least five years' underground experience. You will know that this provision enables them to appoint any one, whether employed in the mine or not, to be an Inspector. It does not necessarily specify that the Inspectors shall be miners ? —No. 1394. Do you not think that they should have five years' underground experience ?-—The Department has not hampered the unions in the selection of their inspectors. It was concluded that they would appoint experienced men. 1395. Are you of opinion that it would be better to stipulate the amount of experience a man should have ?—Yes. 1396. In regard to the question of additional rules, if it is reasonable that a man should have five years' experience before he can be appointed a workmen's inspector, it should also be reasonable for him to have five years' experience before he can be appointed to the Board to consider these special rules ? —lt has not been put in the Bill, but I think it would be better if it were. 1397. Clause 13 is also a very important one. It has reference to the height of lifts in pillars. We may take it that the manager or the underviewer visits the working-places of the mine as often as he can. Now, this clause appears to me to be a very dangerous one. If you have, we will say, a seam 14 ft. thick, with a tender coal roof and a hard stone roof, is it possible to hold that coal in the first lift ? —No. I think this was the most debated subject in the whole Bill: it was considered that 10 ft. was as high as a man could safely timber under ordinary conditions ; if it is a bad roof it was not to be insisted upon, in such cases to take out the coal to the roof in the first lift. This provision of 10 ft. in the clause is not a hard-and-fast rule, as is stated in the next paragraph. 1398. I do not take it that the matter is treated fairly, inasmuch as the man who examines the place daily, and the manager who inspects it frequently, is in a much better position to judge whether that coal can be worked safely than the Inspector who pays a casual visit. Assuming that you are taking out a row of pillars and in a safe place, you are able to take it up, as you suggest, in a 10 ft. lift. In coming back it may be important to get a certain pillar out so that the fall which you expect will be a good one. According to this clause you must wait until it is judged by the Warden, or the Inspector, or the Inspecting Engineer before you can take that particular pillar out, and probably that delay will do damage ?—lf you look back to clause 9 (b) you will see the additional rule that committee can prescribe the height of first workings.
C—l 4
142
F. REED
1399. But this does not apply to this particular section—that only applies to workings other than pillars I -That is true, but in the clause you are dealing with the first decision is given by the Inspector, and if it is objected to it is finally referred to the Inspecting Engineer. You would get permission to carry on work until the question was decided. MOO. i would like to know what you are going to do if you cannot keep the coal up ?— You will be treated fairly. [do not think it is a very hard rule. 1401.. Who takes the responsibility under section 60 of the Coal-mines Act ? Supposing a responsible manager knows his mine well he may know it is impossible to comply with that section. If he is instructed by the Inspector, or the Warden, or the Inspecting Engineer to do a certain thing he may be quite sure in his own mind that it is a very dangerous practice. Can you imagine the feelings of that manager if a man gets injured as the result of that practice, after he (the manage]-) has objected to it all along I lam not prepared to debate that point. This is a very well-established provision. 1 402. I am afraid that ail. mining men, and working-men too, will view that clause with alarm ?- The I nspeetor is not the final arbiter. The matter may come before the Minister and the Inspecting Engineer. 1403. In regard to this schedule of special rules applicable to a coal-mine, No. 3 («) in the Bill, in it not rather foolish to put trailers on behind the empty trucks going up a jig ?—lt does bo harm, and it might do good; it saves one of the tubs, and might also save life. 1404. 1 think you said it applied to mines nearly all over the world ?— The trailer is nearly always used on all haulage inclines. 1405. Can you tell me whether it applies to jigs in other parts of the world ?—I do not know any mine that I have been connected with out of New Zealand where they have jigs. In Durham they have no jigs. I think it is a very good provision. 1406. Is it not a fact that some of the most disastrous explosions in the world's history have occurred in mines that have been supposed to be the best equipped and the best managed ?- There have been explosions in such mines. 1407. You will remember the explosion at the Oourrierres Mine, in France, in 1911. Was it not classed as a model mine as to equipment and management ?—I do not know. 1408. Mr. Dowgray.] There has been a lot of evdience as to whether a mine-manager was obliged to report to the Mines an exudation of gas. You will probably have noticed that there is provision in the British Act to compel a manager to report all ignitions of gas. It says, " Where, in or about any mine, whether above or below ground, any accident occurs which either is caused by an explosion of gas, or coaldust, or any explosive, or by electricity, or by overwinding, or by any other such cause as the Secretary of State specifies by order, and causes any personal injury whatever to any person employed in or about the mine ; the owner, agent, or manager of the mine shall forthwith send notice in writing of the accident, or of any loss of life or personal injury caused thereby, to the Inspector of the division, in such form and accompanied by such particulars as may be prescribed, and, in the case of an accident causing loss of life or serious personal injury, notice in such form and accompanied by such particulars as may be prescribed shall also be sent to the person (if any) nominated by the persons employed at the mine for the purpose of receiving notice under this section on their behalf " ?— Yes, they have to be reported according to the British Act. 1409. That would do-away with a lot of trouble if we had such a section in our Act ?- Yes. 1410. Do you think similar provision could be put into the new Bill?— Yes, it would be a most excellent thing, but I think the new Bill provides for that by enabling us by regulation to require managers to report these matters. Ml 1. It is better to have it in the statute —everything would be then reported ? — Yes. Robert Cumming, Labourer, sworn and examined. (No. 15.) 1. Mr. Wilford. | What are you, Mr. dimming ? -I was a miner for twenty-two years ; 1 have been a navvy since then -for the last two years. 2. Did you at one time work in Ralph's Mine ? — Yes, I was there for six years. 3. Up till two years ago ? —Yes. 4. Did you ever know of any gas-explosion happening while you were there ?—I knew of one- — in the little dip section, No. 2 bord. 5. About how long ago ?—About five years ago. 6. Was Mr. Wight manager at that time ?—Yes. 7. You can speak of an explosion of gas taking place in that particular mine ?—Yes. 8. How do you know ?—When I went up to the bench, after crib time, gas exploded and burned my head and face. 9. Then I may take it that five years ago, when you were working there, there was an explosion of gas in Ralph's Mine, which caused you personal injury ?—Yes. 10. Mr. Tunks.] Can you indicate whereabouts that was ? In the little dip section, No. 2 bord. 11. Can you show it on the plan ? Was it along the winch-level ?- Straight in from the horse level, where the heading opened up into the bord. 12. Was it on the right or the left ?—- On the left from the horse-road. 13. How long were you incapacitated ?.—I was away from work only that afternoon. We were sent away. 14. The deputy stopped you from working there ?—Yes, the ventilation was carried in, and the next day there was no gas in the place. L 5. And you went back next day ?—Yes. 16. Is that the only gas you have seen there ?—No. I remember when we were working in a heading from No. 7to No. 5 there was gas to be occasionally seen. We had to keep the ventilation close up. There was a continuous bleeding.
A. JENKINS.]
143
C—l 4.
Albert Jenkins, sworn and examined. (No. 16.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] What are you, Mr. Jenkins ?— 1 have been a miner for the past ten years. ] am now driving a greengrocer's cart. 2. Were you working in Ralph's Mine ?—Yes. 3. How long ago ? -About four years ago, up till the last strike, when I was victimized. 4. Were you there while Mr. Fletcher was manager ?—Yes. 5. I want you to tell the Commission whether you know of any explosions of gas which burned anybody while Mr. Fletcher was manager and while you were there ?—Yes, I saw one of my fellowworkers burned by gas. 6. What was his name ?— William Dennis. 7. He and you were working together ; where ?- In No. 7 north. 8. What were you actually engaged in doing ? —Driving a heading up towards No. 5. 9. What occurred ?• It was after crib time. We had been back, and had had some lunch, and when we returned to the coal place my mate went up to the cut to continue his work, and I was close behind him. He ignited some gas in the cut, which had accumulated while we were away having crib. 10. He had a naked light on his head ?—Yes, and he ignited the gas as he went back to the cut. 11. What happened ?—He burned his face and singed his head. He dodged back, and saved himself to a certain extent, and we took him back and rubbed his face and forehead with oil. He was not burned so severely as to be unable to continue his work. 12. You swear that was during the time Mr. Fletcher was manager ?—Yes, about two years ago ; Mr. Fletcher was manager then. 13. Mr. Tunks.] Can you explain where that place was ?—ln No. 7 north. 14. That is a fairly large district ?—We were driving a heading up off the travelling-road that runs from the little dip to No. 7 north. It is called the No. 7 north section. 15. How long before you left the mine did that happen ?— About eighteen months ; it was about two years ago now. 16. It was eighteen months prior to the strike ?—Yes. It would be from two to two and a half years ago. William Dennis and I were working cross mates with Harry Smith and Edward Moore. The headings were stopped at No. 5. [Position explained on plan by Mr. Fletcher. | 17. And you put some oil on your mate's face, and he went on with his work ?—Yes. 18. Where is Dennis now ?—1 do not know, but 1 think he is in Hamilton. 19. He practically lost no time or work at all ?- He lost no work, but his face was sore for days after that. 20. Mr. Dowgray. \ Was it in the heading that was stopped ?- Yes, but he was burned before the heading was stopped. 21. Are you positive it was during Mr. Fletcher's time as manager ?—--I would not swear to that, but if I had a little more time to consider 1 would be able to fix the date more definitely. " I wish to correct my evidence given to the Commission in Huntly. After consideration 1 wish to state that the explosion of gas which burnt my mate W. Dennis occurred while Mr. E. Wight was manager, not Mr. Fletcher. After considering it over and bringing it to mind, I find it would be about four years back. -Albert Jenkins, 23/10/14." David Molesworth, jun., sworn and examined. (No. 17.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] You were working in Ralph's Mine, were you not ?—Yes. 2. How long ?—About fifteen years, I think. 3. And I think you were vice-president of the old union ?—Yes, of the Waikato Miners' Union, the union previous to this executive being formed. 4. Did you resign from that union ? —No, my term expired, and I did not stand for re-election. 5. When you were in the mine was Mr. Wear working there ?-- Yes. 6. Who was your working-mate ? -Robert Neil. 7. Did a gas-ignition take place on account of the use of a naked light while you were working with Neil ?—lt did. 8. Where was that ?—-In No. 7 north. 9. How many years ago was that ?—lt would be about three years ago. 10. Do you know who the manager was at the time ?—Mr. Fletcher. 11. Will you tell us how the ignition took place ?-—On the morning when we were going to our work we stopped back a bit from the face to take our clothes off, and when we were ready to go to work my mate took his lamp up in his hand and walked towards the face. 12. How was he carrying it ?—ln his hand. When he got to the face he lifted his lamp up to put it on his head, and it ignited the gas. 13. Then it was safe in his hand, but when he got it to the height of his head it lit the gas ?—Yes. 14. Did the flame traverse any distance, or shoot in any direction ? —I was back about half a chain behind him. It came right back within a yard of me. 15. That would be nearly a 20-yard flame ?- No, about 10 yards of a flame. 16. Did it burn either of you ?— No, it only singed my mate's hair and scorched his face.a little bit. 17. Did you report that to Mr. Wear ?— Yes. 18. Mr. Wear said you did not ? Well, we did. 19. Who was the deputy at the time ?— Mr. Darby. 20. Did Mr. Wear send for Mr. Darby ? Ido not know whether he sent for him or not, but a little later they both came back ; Mr. Wear had a safety-lamp, and we had a little dispute for a while.
a—l 4.
144
[d. molesworth. ,tun.
21. Was anything said in regard to reporting the matter ? — Yes, I asked Mr. Darby iffhe had reported this. He said the place had been examined, and I said, "If you examined the place did you report finding gas," and he said, " No, we never found any gas. I was in here this [morning, and the date is on the place." It was there, too —I saw it. 22. What was the height of that place ? —About 6 ft. 6 in. or 7 ft. 23. Not over 7 ft. ?—No. 24. And there was no doubt the gas was ignited that time from the height of your mate's head ? — Yes. 25. Mr. Timks.] How long ago did you say this was ?—I could not swear to it, but somewhere between three and four years ago —about three years and a half. 26. Did either you or your mate lose any time over it ? —No. 27. Can you describe the place so that it can be identified as to where the bord was ?—lt was a lieading which we were driving from No. 7 north to the little dip. It was very nearly through. 28. Was it eventually taken through ?—Yes. 29. You said that after Wear came back with the safety-lamp you had a little dispute for a while ? Yes. 30. What were you disputing about ?—I wanted to see the report-book. 31. The dispute was as to whether he had reported gas or not ?— Yes, and he said to me that I had no right to look at the book. 32. Had you ever experienced gas before ? —Yes, under just similar conditions. 33. You knew what was a gas-flame ? —Yes. 34. Had you seen one before ? —Never before that. 35. Was this a wet place or a dry place ? —lt was fairly dry. 36. Had you any further difficulty with that place ?—No, they brought in some more brattice and put it up. 37. Who was in the place before you cavilled into it ?—I think it was Rowe and Trimble. 38. And do you remember who was in after you ?—I could not remember. 39. Deputy Darby is now dead, I believe ? —Yes. 40. What position did Mr. Wear occupy at that time ?- He was a shot-firer. 41. Mr. Dowgray.] You stated that you saw gas lit up before ; very frequently ? —Yes, just small quantities lighting up half a dozen perhaps. Once you started to work it was all right. 42. If you had been out half an hour for lunch ?- Yes. 43. In that same place ?—Yes, and in other places. 44. Mr. Brown.] How far was the brattice back from the face on this particular morning when you saw the long flame ? It must have been back about twenty yards. 45. Then there could not have been very much ventilation there on that particular morning ?—I think that Mr. Wear made a remark that they were short of brattice at that time. Jambs Pulton, Farm Labourer (ex-Miner), sworn and examined. (No. 18.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] For how long were you mining, Mr. Fulton ?•— For about twenty-seven years. 2. I think you were a check inspector for some time ? —Yes. 3. How long have you worked in Ralph's Mine ?—About seven years, and in the Extended Mine about two years. 4. And how many years have you worked under Mr. Fletcher ?—About a year and a half to two years, as near as I can say. 5. Can you give me any instances of gas-ignitions ? —Yes. 6. Will you please state them, and also where they occurred ? On one occasion when I was working in a heading in a little dip, upon going back after lunch, Mr. John Skellern, the shot-firer come in : he preceded us to the face, and when he went into the cut he lit up gas. 7. Was any one injured on that occasion ? —No. 8. Do you remember anything occurring in Old No. 3 ?—Yes ; for a good part of a quarter my mate and I could never get to the face in the morning until more brattice was put in and the gas got out. 9. Each morning ? —Yes, each morning. 10. Who was the deputy on that occasion ?—William Smith. 11 Who was your mate ? —Frank Raynor. 12. Do you mean that for the best part of a quarter there were accumulations every morning ?—. Yes, we had to sit down and wait until the face was clear. 13. Morning after morning ?--Yes. 14. What was the general width of the travelling-road ?—lt is about the ordinary width of a bord, about 14 ft. wide in most places. 15. Were the travelling-roads dusty ?—Yes, frequently. 16. To what width— -the whole width of the road ?■ -Yes, the whole width of the road. 17. Were the roads watered ?—Yes, occasionally. 18. To what width ?—Well, to about 2 ft., or perhaps a yard. 19. In the centre or the side ? —ln the centre. 20. While each side was left unwatered ?—Dry. 21. Was that the method that was adopted by the management for watering these dusty roads ? -Yes. 22. Did you ever see any places alight there ? Did you ever find heat or fire ?—On one occasion under the late William Evans ; after leaving a place on a Friday night with, perhaps, fourteen or fifteen skips of coal lying loose, shot down, when we went to work on the following Monday morning the coals were all very much heated. We, of course, wheeled them out immediately.
D. MOLESWORTH, .TUN.]
145
C—l 4.
23. Was there appreciable heating- -such heat as you could feel ?- Yes, I drew Mr. Evans's attention to it. 24. Mr. Tunks.] Who was your working-mate in the heading in the little dip ? —Charles Allen. 25. How long ago was this ?—I can hardly tell; perhaps about three and a half to four years ago. 26. That was before Mr. Fletcher was manager ?—I cannot be certain of that. 27. Can you explain the place so that Mr. Fletcher can identify it ?—lt was going away from the winch-level on the right side of the dip. 28. How far were you in from the winch dip ? —At the bottom, somewhere near where they used to unhook the skips from the chain. It has all been worked out since then. 29. No one was injured on that occasion ? —That is so. 30. No one lost any time ? —No. 31. And you went on with your work ?—Yes. 32. In this No. 3 you say that you found gas every morning practically for the best part of a quarter, but that proper attention was given to it every morning ?—lf that had not been done somebody would have come to grief. 33. And the gas was cleared away ?—Yes, it was generally. 34. You lost no time ?—Yes, we did. Sometimes we lost two hours, and the management did not give us a penny for it. 35. How long ago was that ?—Quite a while ago. 36. Before Mr. Fletcher's time ?—Yes. 37. Can you give us a rough idea : was it five, or six, or seven years ago ?—lt is very difficult for me to say. 38. How long is it since you left Ealph's Mine ?—Two years. 39. Your remarks as to the watering of the mine have references to the practice in vogue two years ago ?—Yes. 40. You do not know what has been done since then ?—Only what I am told. 41. Who was the deputy in charge when you came on this warm coal—about fourteen or fifteen skips ?—William Smith. 42. The man who is dead ?—Yes. 43. And Evans was your mate ?—No ; he was under-manager at that time. 44. Mr. Newton.] For how long were you a check inspector, Mr. Fulton ?—I was on that job, on and off, for about twelve months. 45. And during that time how many inspections did you make ? —Not very many ; perhaps one or two, because I did not agree with it. 46. It was not customary, then, to make any periodical inspections ? — No, not periodical inspections. 47. Did you have any special qualifications as a check inspector ?—No. 48. Would you consider that any special qualifications are necessary ?—Yes ; I quite believe that every man, before he is appointed a check inspector, should pass a simple examination, so that he would be able to test for gas, and that sort of thing. I quite believe in that. 49. Mr. Macassey.] You know Inspector Bennie ?—Yes. 50. I think you saw him on the occasions of his inspections of Ralph's Mine ?—Yes. 51. And I think it was his custom to go into the working-places and chat with the men ?— Yes. 52. Did you ever complain to him ?—We complained to the management. 53. Did you ever complain to Mr. Bennie ?—I would have to go through the books to find that out. We simply made our report as we came out of the mine. 54. Did you ever complain to Mr. Bennie ?—Through the report we made to the manager—it was for Mr. Bennie. 55. Have you ever complained to Mr. Bennie personally ?—No. 56. Mr. Brown.] In that place where the coal heated, can you remember whether it was soft coal ? —It was mixed. It was like coal coming off a fault—soft on one side and hard on the other. 57. Was there any fireclay in it ?—No. 58. It was not a clean coal ?—You could not call it clean coal. 59. With reference to your check inspections, you reported the truth and represented the conditions as you found them. Edward Septimus Wight, Mine-manager, sworn and examined. (No. 19). Witness reads evidence given by him at Coroner's inquest, as follows : — " Edward Septimus Wight, sworn, saith : I am managing director of the Pukemiro Coal Company. I was manager of Ralph's Mine up to December, 1910, for about ten years. I never found gas in any quantity either in the working-places or in the old workings. I have no recollection of finding gas in the old workings at all. The mine in my time was always working with naked lights. It never struck me that it was a dangerous mine to work with naked lights. It was a dry mine, but not dusty. On one occasion there was an explosion at which one man was burnt. I have had experience with safety-lamps. I think when a man gets used to them he should be able to see as well as with a naked light. I have not been down the mine since they were able to make an examination. " By Mr. Napier : I always regarded it as a safe mine. " By Mr. Tunks : I came to the conclusion that the explosion occurred through an explosion of gas released by some seismic disturbance. Some authorities in England lay great stress upon the result of seismic disturbance. Tt would happen without any warning.
19—C. 14.
C—l 4.
146
[E. S. WIGHT.
"By Police : The White Island explosion took place on the 11th, as far as T can ascertain. I put in extracts from papers read at the Institute of Mining Engineers in England. I also put in a list of barometric readings taken at Auckland reduced to sea-level taken from the Ist to 15th September, 1914. [Extracts put in as Extract R.] I had charge of a seismometer at Marsden Colliery. A record of an earth-disturbance there coincided with an explosion in a mine in Durham. " By Mr. Bennie : During the time I was manage] , of the Ralph's Mine I did not observe that the walls and timbers were acting as receptacles for fine coaldust of a dangerous nature. I never thought it necessary to water the walls of the drive. The conditions of mine with regard to dust might change materially in four years—that is, since I left. The walls are capable of carrying an accumulation of fine dust. Generally speaking, I would describe the walls as perpendicular. I would find fault with the miners if I found they were exceeding the width of the bord either at the top or bottom. "By Mr. Napier : During my time the walls were practically vertical all the time. There was not a dangerous accumulation of dust in the mine at any time while I was there or during my period of fom , years. " By Mr. Northcroft : There would be irregularities in the walls, which would harbour dust. "By Mr. Tunks : Spraying is now out of date. In English mines the coaldust is mixed with stonedust. The reason that water is not used is that it has detrimental effects in that where the floor is soft or the sides are soft it causes movements in them." 1. Mr. Wiljord.] Did you sink Ralph's shaft ?—No ; not the winding shaft. I enlarged the upcast shaft. 2. Did you leave adequate shaft-pillars ?—Yes. 3. Are you sure ?—Yes. 4. How long was that ago ?■— December, 1910. 5. Do you know whether they have been reduced in size ?—I cannot say. 6. Of course, the coal there round those pillars may be very easily won ?—lt would be ; but it would be a most unpractical thing for a manager to do. 7. Mr. Reed and Mr. Bishop say they are unsafe ; you do not know whether they are in the same condition now as when you left them ?—I have not made an examination to enable me to certify to that. 8. Do these shaft-pillars weep, or part of them come away ?—Yes ; in course of time, all coal frets a little. 9. Do they fret ?—Yes. 10. When you were manager of the Taupiri Mine, did you oppose the sinking of an additional shaft across the river as a means of exit ?—I did. 11. Were you wrong ?—No ; on the grounds on which the claim was made. 12. You made very strong opposition to it ?— Yes. 13. It was by the additional shaft at Taupiri West that eleven men escaped in the recent disaster '. —Yes. 14. And if there had not been that shaft there would have been eleven more casualities ?—1 would not say. 15. Did the Mines Department compel the connection to be made ?—No, not that I am aware of. 16. Will you deny that it was the Mines Department that insisted upon this second outlet ?—1 would not deny it. 17. If Mr. Bennie says it was, will you deny it ?— I would not deny it. It was brought about by the company acquiring the adjacent property. 18. It became a valuable escape-hole in this connection ?- It seems so. 19. Mr. Tunks.] This question of the shaft was gone into at the time of the discussion about the second shaft ?—You mean the third shaft. 20. The safety of the pillars and the overlying strata was very fully considered ?— Yes, there was elaborate evidence on the subject. 21. Expert evidence ?—Yes, scientific evidence. 22. It was very fully considered, Mr. Wight, and the evidence was that the shaft-pillars were ample for all requirements ? —That is so. 23. So far as you have observed anything, is there anything to suggest to you that the condition of the shaft-pillars has altered ?— Nothing whatever. 24. We have had several instances of burns being reported. Do you remember a man called Gumming working in No. 7 ? —Yes, I think so. 25. Do you remember his being burned at any time by igniting gas ?- I do not. 26. Or Charles Allen or James Fulton ? —No. 27. Do you remember any occasion at old No. 3 where a place was worked by Fulton and Raynor which for a great part of a quarter could not be approached for gas until it had been cleared out ?— I cannot call it to mind. 28. Did it ever occur to you at any time to make any test of the dust in Ralph's Mine ? No. 29. You had no knowledge that it was a particularly explosive dust ? —No. 30. It was not the custom in your time to water the mine ?—No. 31. Did you ever consider it necessary to make a practice of reporting every time you found gas in the mine, or even every time an ignition was reported to you ? -No ;it was not the custom. Ido not know of any rules bearing upon it. 32. And did you necessarily report if a man were, as you considered, slightly burned by gas ?—• Not slightly. I had one instance of a man slightly, but not reported. 33. Have you considered the Coal-mines Amendment Bill ?— Yes.
B. S. WIGHT. I
147
C—l 4.
34. May 1 draw you attention to clause 6- official inquiries in case of accident. You are aware that it is proposed to set up a Court to deal with people who hold certificates, a Court which is to consist of a Warden sitting with two Assessors appointed by him, one of whom shall be the holder of a first-class mine-manager's certificate, and the other an experienced miner working in some mine other than that in which the accident occurred. 35. That Court has the right to disqualify a person by cancelling his certificate. Would you be satisfied that a tribunal so constituted should have the power to take away your certificate ? — I think that the miner should have some further qualifications. 36. [t means that the Assessor, who is a first-class mine-manager, might disagree with the othertwo members of the Court, and they might deprive you of your certificate. Would such a Court satisfy you ?—lf the miner were a man with some qualifications and standing, I think I would be prepared to abide by the decision of the Court. 37. Do you think that the miner should have some definite qualification ?—Yes, he should be able to produce evidence of his bona fides as an experienced miner. We have had men come here and say they were experienced miners on the coal, and it has afterwards come out that they had never been underground before. A man of that description might be put on such a tribunal —some loquacious individual. 38. Have you considered the question of the number of men to be employed in a ventilating district as provided by subclause (d) of clause 7 ? —Yes. 39. It says, " The total number of men ordinarily employed in any ventilating district shall not without the consent in writing of the Inspector exceed fifty at any one time, and in no case shall the number exceed seventy." Have you anything to say as to that ?—I consider the minimum should be seventy. 40. You consider that fifty is too small ? Yes, you would probably have to cut up your aircurrents, and you would not get sufficient volume to carry away your smoke readily. 41. Now, regarding paragraph B of subclause (j) of clause 46b, you will notice that it is proposed that the workmen's inspections may take place once in every fortnight ? —I think once a month is quite frequent enough for a general examination of a mine. They have the right, if any special circumstances arises, to make extra inspections. 42. Regarding paragraph (c) of the same subclause, you see the workmen's inspectors shall report within twenty-four hours of the making of their inspection ?- -They should be required to report at onee —it should be done immediately they leave the mine, in the same way as the officials' reports have to be written immediately the examination is completed. 43. You think the check inspectors should not be allowed any time to discuss their inspection before reporting ?- That is so. 44. Clause 8 (1) (a) provides for the amendment of Special Rule 4 under the Act by adding the words " No timber shall be withdrawn except by lever and chain, or by blasting " ; in your opinion is that a proper provision ?—lf made to apply to pillar-workings it is a desirable thing. 45. Is it practicable ?—ls there not a difficulty in regard to taking away your timbers ?—As far as I know, it is taken from the English Act; if that is so, and they work to it there, I have no objection to it. 46. Under clause 9 of the Bill there is to be set up a committee on additional rules, to consist of the Inspector of Mines, the mine-manager, and a representative of the workmen : do you think the Inspector should act on that committee and be the chairman of it ?—No, I do not agree with the setting-up of the committee for that purpose at all. 47. You do not think there should be any such committee ? —That is my idea. I think it is making the manager subservient to the workers. It is depriving him of all power, and yet he has to take the responsibility under the Act. 48. Supposing the committee is set up, what do you say about the Inspector being the chairman of it and a member of it: do you think that is a proper position to put the Inspector in ? —lt is making him shoulder the responsibility of the working of the mine instead of the manager. Ido not think it is a propei , position to put him in. The Inspector should only be required to see that the Act is observed. 49. Will yt>u now turn to the schedule to the Bill. Rule No. 3 says, " A backstay or trailer shall be attached to each ascending tub, or set of tubs, on every inclined haulage-road where mechanical haulage other than endless rope and chain is used." Does that strike you as practicable ? It is the empty tub that is to have the backstay : how would that apply in a jig ?—I think it is a rather useless provision on a face jig. 50. Rule 57a says, " Only wire ropes shall be used for haulage purposes on jigs, except on the face section, where chains may be used. Anchor chains shall be used on all face jigs " ?—I do not understand that quite. If it is to secure the chain until the second skip is attached to it it is reasonable. 51. But the trailer ?—Well, the trailer on the face jig is a useless provision. 52. Mr. Brown.] Section 3 does not specially mention jigs, but still it is quite possible it is meant to refer to jigs ?—I do not see any objection to using a trailer on a set of skips of that description. I take it that it applies to cases where you are running empties in by gravity. Ido not think it is an unreasonable provision at all. 53. There has been a suggestion made in regard to the qualifications of Inspectors of Mines— that no man should be appointed an Inspector of Coal-mines who has not qualified for a minemanager's certificate by examination :do you agree with that statement ?—Yes, I do. I think all Inspectors should be men of the greatest eminence in the coal-mining industry in the country, so that we can look up to them for advice.
0.—14.
148
[E. S. WIGHT.
54. And with wide experience as colliery managers ?—Yes. 55. Have you examined clause 4 of the Bill ?—Yes. 56. In regard to subclause (2), are you satisfied that the appointment of the Chief Inspector of Mines should be made simply by statute, without any opportunity being given by advertisement for applications to be made for the position ?—No, I think the Chief Inspector of Mines should be a man of at least five years' practical experience as a colliery manager. 57. In any case, do you think that it is a position of such importance that applications should be invited in order to insure that the best man obtainable should be appointed ?—Most certainly. 58. The position will be one of very great power ?—Yes, and I think a man should be well remunerated, and the best man obtainable should be appointed. 59. Have you any other comment to make upon the Bill \ —No, 1 have not gone through it; but there is one matter I would like to refer to, and that is a contradiction between the Act and one of the special rules. The Act gives permission for a shot to be unrammed while the special rule says distinctly that a shot shall not be unrammed. lam speaking now of the present Act, and not of the Bill which it is proposed to pass. 60. Do you know the explosive known as monobel ?—Not very well, but I have used it. 61. Mr. Napier.] How long were you manager of Ralph's Mine ?—Ten years and a half. 62. During your term of office did you strip the shaft-pillars or in any way weaken them ?- No. 63. So that the shaft when you left the mine was in practically the same condition as when you began ?—lt was in better condition, because I built several brick walls to retain the pillars. 64. Then it was really stronger when you left the mine than when you entered it ?—Yes. 65. In the ten years and a half you were there was there any appreciable fretting of the pillars ? —Not very appreciable. I would not call it large for ten and a half years' work. 66. If the fretting continued at the same rate at which it went on while you were in charge, it would probably take a hundred years before there was very much difference in the size of the pillars ? —Not a hundred years ; twenty or twenty-five years, perhaps. We made experiments with regard to the strength of the coal. 67. Can you tell us from memory what are the sizes of the pillars, approximately ?— 24 ft. wide and 25 to 30 yards long. 68. That would be from 80 ft. to 90 ft. by 24 ft. ?—Yes, that was what they were laid out at. 69. Can you tell us what the underlying stratum is ?—There is usually 4 ft. to 6 ft. of fireclay. 70. Immediately underneath the coal ?—Yes. 71. And underneath the fireclay ?—lt gradually hardens into the stone. 72. Have you any doubt that it is a good foundation which the coal rests upon ?—No, it is very good. 73. You have had English experience in coal-mines ?—Yes, I had seven or eight years' English experience, and obtained my certificate in England. 74. As compared with English mines, how would you describe the condition of this mine so far as dust is concerned I —l would describe it as a mine comparatively free from dust. 75. As compared with English mines ?—Yes. 76. Have you ever had occasion to consider section 62 of the Act : " The mine-manager shall forthwith after the occurrence of any accident attended with serious injury to any person give notice thereof by telegraph to the Minister and to the Inspector, and shall also at the same time send written notice thereof to the Inspector and to the workmen's inspector." As an experienced manager, what would you regard as an accident attended with serious injury, within the meaning of that section ?— It would apply to a case where a man had a leg broken, but not where it was only slight bruises or cuts ; if the injury involved a broken bone. 77. If there was an ignition of gas in the face after the lunch-hour, and a man was slightly burned, and he was able to go on with his work, would that be reported to the Inspector ?—No. 78. If a man were off a few days from work, would you report that to the Inspector ?—lf it were going to incapacitate him for a week I would, and yet that argument hardly holds good, because a man is sometimes off work for a fortnight, justifiably, with a cut finger. 79. What is your opinion as to what is practically understood by the meaning of subsection (47) of section 40 : " After inflammable gas has been found in any mine it shall be cleared by ventilation, and a barometer and thermometer shall be placed above ground in a conspicuous position near the entrance to the mine." Is that the usual practice—to clear the place by ventilation ?—Yes. 80. And that is considered sufficient ?—To make the place safe and fit for work. 81. And when it is cleared by ventilation the men resume their work ?—Exactly. 82. Does not that imply that it is a common thing to find inflammable gas in mines, seeing that the Act provides for the diffusion of the gas ?—lt may happen ; I do not know that it is a common thing —not a daily occurrence. 83. I wanted to try and ascertain what was the prevailing opinion among mine-managers as to the position occupied by the Mines Department in relation to the coal-mines of New Zealand. Section 41 of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, says : " The special rules set forth in the Second Schedule to this Act shall be the special rules for the conduct and guidance of persons acting or employed in or about every mine to ensure the health and safety of such persons, and the owner or agent of every mine shall cause a copy of such special rules to be hung up in some conspicuous place in the mine." Would you say that if a mine-manager carried out his duties as laid down in those special rules he would be doingall that was required of him ?—I certainly would. 84. The Act says that the special rules are for the conduct and guidance of the persons working in the mine ?—Yes.
149
C—l 4.
E. S. WIGHT, j
85. Would you consider it necessary in the face of that section of the Act that the manager should have to consider his conscience for standards of duty other than the Act in carrying out his duties ? —No, he simply has to comply with the Act. 86. You think if he complies with the Act and special rules he is doing his duty I —Yes, J. think so. 87. The Chairman.] You would not consider yourself bound by the rules if you had some better means of getting over a sudden emergency ? You would do the best you could, rules or no rules ?— Yes, most decidedly. 88. Mr. Dowgray.] But the manager's conscience plays some part in it ?—Yes, of course. 89. Mr. Napier.] In the new Bill one of the principal officers of the Department is appointed by statute : do you not think that the Government of the country or the Public Service Commissioners ought to have the power to appoint the best man to positions under the Act ?—Yes. 90. The best man that can be got, even from Europe, at such salaries as we can pay : do you consider that one man in the Service should get the position ?—No, not any more than was done in regard to the appointment of the General Manager of Railways. 91. Do you not think that all Inspectors of Mines ought to be experienced, cultured, and levelheaded men with good judgment ?—I do. 92. You would not agree that they ought to be of the type mentioned by St. Paul : " A reed shaken by the wind.' . He ought to be a man of some stability of character ?—Yes, a man to whom we can look for assistance. 93. It has been suggested in the course of this inquiry that the Inspectors, the Inspecting Engineer, and other officers of the Department should not communicate any advice to mine-manage is to help them in the conduct of their work :do you agree with that ? —I think it would be a very good thing if we had men to advise us in time of trouble. 94. You said that you looked to the Mining Inspector for advice ?—Yes. 95. That is a fact ? —Yes. 96. And it has been customary for them to give advice ?—Yes ; 1 have on occasions had advice from the Inspector. 97. And do you not think that the officers of the Department ought to be in a highly competent position to advise mine-managers as to the best means of carrying on their work, just as the Agriculture Department advises agricultural people ? -Yes, I think it would be a good thing ; and the Department should carry on experiments for the safe working of mines, as they do in England. 98. Yes, the same as other Departments of the State assist people interested in the various industries ?—Yes. 99. You do not think the Mines Department should content itself with perfunctorily seeing that the law is carried out ?—I think they should combine the two functions-—to tender advice and see that the Act is carried out. 100. Mr. Tunks.] In regard to the sinking of the third shaft, that was undertaken because it was suggested, I think, that there was a danger of the river breaking into the mine ? —Yes, that was the sole cause. 101. The question of escape from an explosion was not a factor at all ?—No ; I was asked by Mr. Justice Denniston, was there any circumstance under which I could imagine a third shaft would be an advantage. I said, " Yes, in the event of an explosion." 102. That reason was not suggested by the Department as a factor in that case ? —No, it was merely the water coming in. 103. Mr. Macassey.] In regard to ladders in the air-shaft, were they put in before your time ?■ No, I put them in. 104. I think Mr. Reed or Mr. Bennie suggested that wire netting should have been put over those ladders ? —Mr. Bennie wanted me to partition the shaft. I argued the matter with him and pointed out that doing so would impede the ventilation. We had a very long discussion over that matter, and came to the conclusion, on my suggestion, that netting should be placed over the ladders. 105. Did Mr. Reed suggest that to you ? —No, never. 106. Mr. Dowgray.] You come from the County of Durham ?—1 do. 1.07. How long is it since you left ?—I came away in 1887. 108. Then you will not be an authority on what would be now classed in England as a dusty mine. Was dust seriously considered in 1887 ? —lt was just then becoming a matter of great notice. Professor Galway was the first to move in the matter. 109. You would not consider yourself, as an authority, in a position to compare this mine with dusty mines in the North of England ?—I must say that this mine was not as dusty as mines I have worked in in the North of England and in Wales. You know how your nostrils and your spittle becomes affected with it. We do not get the same effect here that they do in the North of England and in Wales. 110. These mines which you are referring to would not be dusty mines ?—Yes. 111. You could not compare them ? Practically all the mines in England are admitted to be dusty mines. 1 12. Did I understand you to say that you were in charge of the Marsden Colliery, Durham ?— No ; I was manager's assistant. 113. In your evidence before the Coroner you were endeavouring to show some connection between the White Island eruption and the disaster here ?—You hardly put it correctly. What I meant to imply was that there had been an earth tremor which had liberated an extraordinary quantity of gas in this mine, and that that theory was borne out by the fact of that eruption at White Island. 114. Was the tremor felt to any degree in Huntly ? —I cannot say that it was; but it is not necessary for a tremor to be felt by a person. It may be a small one, only recorded by a seismometer.
a—l 4
150
[E. S. WIGHT.
115. There have been some very severe tremors in this Island this week, and yet they have not had any effect on this mine ? —I did not mean to contend that every tremor is going to liberate gas. The circumstances may be such that there is a quanttiy of gas ready to be liberated, not that every tremor will liberate gas. Professor Milne in reporting to the Government in Japan draws a very close connection between earth pulsations and the issue of mine-gas ; this also applies to Professor Gregory in England. 1 still think that there was an extraordinary exudation of gas that morning. 1 16. What disaster occurred in Durham ?—The one at the Clemore Colliery in 1886, I think. 117. Is it not a fact, in connection with this third shaft, that the Government only granted this company the additional lease on condition that the company put down another shaft as previously advocated by the Government ?—I am not prepared to swear to that. Perhaps there was some condition in it; I think there was some such condition. 118. You stated that your pillars were 24 ft. wide and 25 yards long : is it not a fact that these pillars have been split since that time % —No, it is'not a fact. 119. Are they the same as them ? If such pillars, even though they were 24 ft. wide, showed any visible signs of fretting in ten years, does the situation not become more dangerous ?■ -We proved at the inquiry there was a very large margin -of safety in those pillars. 120. Even with the 4 ft. of fireclay ? —lt is a good foundation ; naturally the pillar crushes into it. 121. Would not a fireclay bottom ease the fretting to some extent ? —I do not think it would effect the fretting at all; the fretting has nothing whatever to do with the floor. It is simply a matter of giving off moisture in the coal. It is natural disintegration. The fretting of the pillar has nothing to do with the weight. 122. Might not these pillars be fretting by weight ?—No ; there is a sufficient margin of satety in them. 123. You say that in your opinion an Inspector of Mines should have five years' colliery-manager's experience before he becomes an Inspector of Mines ? —I think it would be a very good condition. 124. Do you agree that the Inspectors of Mines in Great Britain are most efficient men -that they are looked upon as being the best men in their particular line ?—Yes, I must admit that. 125. Do you know of any Inspector of Mines in Great Britain who has had five years' experience as a coal-mine manager ?—Unfortunately, I do not know any of them at the present time. 126. Do you know any of them ? Did you ever hear at all of any ?—Yes ; but it is twenty-seven years since I left England, and one gets out of touch. Dr. Atkinson, of Wales, is the only man 1 can call to mind as an inspector. 127. Was there a superior examination for Inspectors above the ordinary mine-manager's examination ? —I think not. 128. Are you aware that they have a different examination to pass ? —No, I do not know of it. 129. In Great Britain, if they found their system is efficient, would you agree that it would be equally applicable here ?—I think so in some respects ; but they are carrying on mining there on a much larger scale. They can afford to have more men, and I think they have a second-grade inspector. He is their practical man. I think that is the case. He is an Assistant Inspector. 130. In connection with the proposal to allow workmen's inspectors to make their inspection once a fortnight, you said that once a month was sufficient ? —I said it was quite sufficient for a workman's general examination of a mine to be made once a month. 131. Is there anything that a manager wishes to hide from the workmen ?—I have never found it so. 132. Why should you wish to confine the inspection to once a month ? —These inspections are a bit of a nuisance. 133. In which direction ?—They take up the time of your officials. 134. Have your officials not to go round, anyway ? --But these men want to go round the old workings and so on every fortnight. 135. Would it not be a saving to the company if the workmen's Inspectors made their inspection after the company's men ?■ -You get reasonable check inspectors, but sometimes they are most unreasonable. 136. If there is nothing to hide ? —My policy is, if there is a danger I want to know it. 1.37. Then you want the most efficient check inspection you can get ?—Yes, but for your purposes once a month is quite frequent enough. 138. That is your only objection —that it might take up too much time of the officials ( Yes, that is the principal objection. There is one other thing, as to whether these men should have the right to go into old workings which have not been examined by the officials of the company. 1.39. You admit that there are workings which, are not examined every day by the officials of the company ? -Not every day. 140. You wish us to infer that you want a prior inspection before the workmen's inspectors go in ? —Yes, I think so. 141. For what reason ? —To find out whether they are to be classed as inspectors or workmen. 142. The clause lays it down that you are to accompany them ? -You " may " accompany them, it says. Supposing that the place has not been examined to-day, what is the position then ? Have those men the opportunity to go in before it is examined by the company's officials ? But the checkinspectors have said that they must be allowed to go in whether the place has been examined or not. 143. As to the additional rules committee, you do not think it is necessary at all ? -No, Ido not. 144. You think that all the mines in New Zealand are similar in character, and that the Act could be so framed that it would be applicable to them all; or do you think that the manager should be allowed the privilege of framing special rules to suit himself ? -No, in accordance with the present Act, he has the right to frame additional rules to be submitted to the Inspector. I have tried that, but have not had the co-operation of the Inspector of Mines to begin with.
E. S. WIGHT.]
151
C—l 4.
14:5. Mr. Brown.\ Have you had much experience in working high pillars ?- Only in the Huntly mines. 146.- Do you think that by reducing the lift of a pillar to 10 ft. it would tend to the safety of working the pillars ? --Not very materially. 147. Is it not going to add additional risk to the present method ? — In .some instances it may, where you have got to leave coal overhead. You might have to make a false roof at 10 ft., which might not be convenient. It would be safer to take the lift to 11 ft. or 12 ft. if a natural parting existed. 148. Assume a place 14 ft. high with soft fireclay on top between the coal and the main roof, do you think you could hold that extra coal safely on timber ?- -Not for any length of time. 149. You think it would be a dangerous practice in some cases ? —I think it would be a sheer waste of coal to no purpose. 150. As regards clause 8, subclause (I), paragraph A, which says that " No timber shall be withdrawn except by lever and chain, or by blasting," this appears to have a very broad application in that it applies to any part of a mine. Assume a place with props sticking up through the bars 6 ft. or 7 ft., how are, you going to take those props out with a lever and chain ?— It should not apply to instances like that; it should be confined to pillar-workings. 151. What would be the result of blowing it out ? You would bring down another fall. 152. Then it is not a practical proposition ?- It should only apply to pillar-workings. 153. This Bill, 1 understand, is framed for the purpose of providing additional safety in mines. (.'an you tell me whether blasting is permitted in intake airways such as haulage-roads in Great Britain ? —It is only done by special permission, when all the men are out of the mine, in a dusty mine. 154. Have not serious explosions taken place in the intake airways of some big mines of England ? -Yes, I think some of them are attributable to that. 155. Can you name one ?- Yes, the explosion at the Mardy Mine in South Wales was one, and that at Altofts was another. 156. Then blasting in a dry and dusty road, in an intake airway, is decidedly dangerous ?— Yes, in a dry and dusty mine. Fred Knapper, Miner, sworn and examined. (No. 20.) 1. Mr. Wilford.] You have been a miner for how long ?—For fifteen years. 2. You have had experience of deputies and check inspectors ?—I have never acted as one. 3. You have had experience of' them ?- Yes. 4. In your opinion would it be well if all check inspectors were first of all elected by the miners, paid by the Government, and put under the Public Service Commissioner ? —I think it would. 5. That would prevent check inspectors from being appointed by the management ?-■ Yes. 6. And being under their thumb all the while ? —Yes. 7. Mr. Napier.] Have you ever known check inspectors to be appointed by the management ?— No, I do not think so. 8. Why do you want the law changed for that purpose ?- -I believe that if the existing law were amended in that direction it would be beneficial both for the men and the employers. 9. Do you not know that under the present law the check inspectors are appointed by the men ?— [ do not know whether it is true or not. but I have heard that men have been appointed who are not experienced enough. 10. You really do not know anything about the method of appointment of check inspectors ? —Yes, I do. 11. But never by the management ?—No, I have never known them to be appointed by the management. 12. Then what is the idea of your present proposal % —lt would make them independent of the management. 13. Mr. Tunks.] Do you not think that the check inspectors should have some qualifications ? I do ; they should be efficient as regards testing for gas. 14. They should pass some examination to prove that they are capable of making a satisfactory examination. You are aware that any person can be appointed. You do not think my inspection, for instance, would be worth much ?—■ That is so. 15. The Chairman.] You think they should be appointed by the union ? —Yes, sir. 16. And become members of the Pubic Service under the Public Service Commissioner ? —Yes, and paid by the State, and, if necessary, trained by the State. 17. Who would dismiss them ? The people who paid them could dismiss them. John Campbell MaoDiaemid, Medical Practitioner, sworn and examined. (No. 21.) Witness read the evidence given by him before the Coroner, as follows : — " John Campbell MacDiarmid : I am a duly qualified medical practitioner, practising at Huntly. 1 have examined all the bodies that have been recovered from the Huntly Mine. I produce a statement showing the cause of death in each case [Exhibit Q]. In addition to those killed there were some severely injured. Three — Peckham, Mottram, and O'Brien-were severely injured. The bodies which were most severely injured were as follows : Nos. 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 32. These numbers are referred to on the plan [Exhibit A]. Nos. 36, 40, and 43 were also severely injured. The ones more injured than the others were Nos. 22, 30, 32, 31, 36, and 43. Nos. 30, 3-1, and 36 were probably the most injured of all. No. 43 was the last body found. By Mr. Tunks : 1 went down in the first rescue party. We had a narrow escape ourselves.
C.—l 4.
152
f.T. C. MAODIABMTD.
1. Mr. Wiljord.] I shall be glad, doctor, if you will describe the injuries to William Kelly, who was injured on 9th July, 1914. They are put down by Mr. Fletcher, the mine-manager, as " Kelly was singed " ?—I put in the statement about that. Kelly had burns to his head and face and to the upper part of the thorax. On the head and face the} T were of the first degree ;on the left ear and over a point over the right clavicle they were of the second degree. The left side of his moustache was completely burnt off, and his hair and eyebrows scorched and singed. I visited him on five or six occasions at his house, and he was off work from the 9th July to the 24th July. 2. Do you know whether he was burned previously, or on any other occasions ?—I could not say absolutely—not to my recollection. 3. Did you know where Martin's coat was found ?—I did not actually see the place. 4. Did you see the boot that was discovered near Martin ?—No. 5. Would you say that the burns to Kelly were merely superficial ?—There was actual exfoliation of the skin in two places over his ear. Over his left ear there were burns of the second degree. 6. In regard to the other men whose bodies you saw, did you know which was Martin's body ?- Yes. 7. You remember bodies Nos. 36 and 43 ; did it appear to you that there was any greater force on any of the bodies of the deceased than there was on Martin ?—There were two bodies which were practically decapitated, Nos. 30 and 31, by the force which struck them. I consider the force which struck them must have been tremendous. 8. And a greater force than that which, struck Martin ?—Most probably. 9. That would agree with Redmayne's theory that the force at the point of origin would be less than that further on in the course of the explosion ?—lt would. 10. Mr. Tunks.] In regard to the bodies Nos. 30 and 31, which you refer to, the injuries to the head were practically the only injuries ?— Yes, they were killed outright. 11. But if they had been struck lower down their injuries might have been the same as those of Martin ? —It was an enormous force. The heads were practically shaven off. 12. I understand that Martin's body has fractures ?—Yes, fractures to his legs and skull. 13. With a piece of coal driven deep into the head ?—Not very deep, but partly driven into the skull. 14. So that though the force apparently was greater further on, Martin experienced great force ? —Yes. 15. And there was also an extraordinary wound in the abdomen ?—Yes, but there was another body which had a similar wound. I would not say that the force which struck Martin was as great as that which struck Nos. 30 and 31. 16. I think a burn of the first degree is not a very serious matter ?—Not as a rule. 17. And I think Kelly was able to get out and about within a day or two of his accident ?—I do not know that. 18. When you visited his house you found that he was out and about ?—I know he went to the . Dog Show, but without my permission. 19. Did he suffer anything as the result of going to the show ?—1 do not think so. 20. The Chairman.] How soon after an accident do you see the men who are injured ?—I saw the first body which was found in the mine. 21. But in regard to Kelly?—l see them, if the injuries are severe, at the pithead, or otherwise at their homes. 22. In regard to Kelly, when would you see him ?—I saw him in the morning. He came home from work early in the forenoon, and I saw him as soon as he arrived. A message was sent to me, and I called at his house. 23. Do you communicate with the manager as to the extent of the injuries received by the men ? —As a rule, if a man is seriously injured. The manager very often rings me up. 24. In regard to Kelly's case, what would be the first intimation as to the extent of the injuries which the manager would receive ?—The first intimation he received was when I met him on the street. 25. If not satisfied by his own observation, could he learn from you the nature of the injuries ?— Certainly. 26. In regard to Kelly's case, section 62 of the Coal-mines Act requires a mine-manager to report " any accident attended with serious injury." Would such injuries as Kelly received, in your opinion, come within that description, and be such as ought to be reported under that section ?—I do not regard Kelly's injury as a very serious one. 27. But the Act says " accident attended with serious injury " ; would that be a serious injury ? T think every injury caused by an ignition of gas is a serious injury, speaking as a colliery surgeon. 28. And you think this injury was caused by a gas-ignition ?—Kelly told me so. 29. Do you know about the injuries to Conn and Willcox ?—Yes. 30. Were those serious injuries ?—No, they were not serious. They necessitated the man staying away from work. Conn was away from the 16th February to the 4th March, 1912. He had burns on the arms, neck, and face. Willcox was suffering from burns to the face and hands, due to ignitions of gas. I would not regard them as burns endangering life. 31. Do you know whether they were caused by gas ?—Conn told me so, and the other men also. He came straight from the pit or was brought to me after the thing happened. 32. Mr. Brown.] What would you regard as being a serious accident? —An accident involvingrisk to human life. 33. Such as total partial incapacitation by a broken limb ? —What do you mean by total partial incapacitation ? 34. That is a term used in the Workers' Compensation Act; if it were an arm the man would lose part of the use of that arm ?—I would regard a fractured limb, or an injury which involved the loss of the use of that limb, as a serious accident.
J. G. MACDIAEMID.]
153
C—l 4.
35. Mr. Napier.] I understood you to say that you regarded any burns inflicted by an ignition of gas as a serious injury ?—Yes. 36. Is there a difference between a burn inflicted by gas and one sustained any other way ?— It is in regard to the position of the burn which lam referring to. Most of the burns I have seen caused by gas have been about the head and face. 37. Supposing burns were sustained on the head and face by other means than gas, those burns being of a similar character, would you describe those as serious injuries ?—lt would depend upon their extent and severity. 38. Supposing they are of the same character and extent ?—I say that all burns due to gas are serious. 39. Then you say that burns due to gas are more serious than burns of the same character and in the same position which are due to other causes ?—I do. 40. Why ?—Because the gas has an explosive effect. It not only burns the skin, but it may attack the deeper tissues. 41. Supposing two persons were brought to you in your surgery, one having burns sustained by means other than gas, and the other burns sustained by gas, the extent and position of the burns being the same, do you say that the burns sustained from gas are more dangerous and more serious than the burns of similar character sustained by other means ?—I do, because when the gas ignites there is a certain amount of momentum. In some cases there is not a trace of hair on the head, and some of these cases undoubtedly have their sight almost destroyed. 42. I am instancing two cases of similar burns —one by gas and one by other means ?—They are not similar burns if they are caused by different processes. 43. Do you say that burns sustained by gas cannot be sustained by any other means ?—The difference is that the gas explodes. 44. Supposing that the two persons were burned on the head and thorax, and the burns from gas are the same as those caused by other means ?—I say they cannot be equal. In the case of burns by gas we are dealing with an injury which is inflicted in a very short space of time by an explosive process. 45. What are the different effects left by gas-burns and those inflicted by other means than gas : can you describe them to us ?—The burns that are produced by gas are certain to damage the deeper tissues in addition to the injury inflicted by the flame at the same time. 46. Supposing two persons are brought into your surgery suffering from burns and you do not know how they have been sustained, could you distinguish between the burns from gas and those inflicted by other means ? —Yes. 47. What is the difference in the effects ? —Gas, as a rule, causes minute portions of coaldust to be driven into the skin. 48. Then, the only reason that burns by gas are more serious than burns inflicted by other means is that coaldust is driven into the skin ?—No, sir; because the coaldust is driven into the skin with explosive violence. The flame is greater than an ordinary flame when it is an explosive flame. If the flame is of sufficient velocity it might destroy portions of the tissue. Any colliery surgeon would say the same thing. 49. But you told us that the reason why a gas-burn is more serious is that coaldust is forced into the tissue ?—Yes. 50. Was that the case in respect of Kelly ?—Yes, I believe so. There was pigmentation. 51. You suggest there was an explosion of coaldust in Kelly's case ? —I did not. 52. I assume that the burns were of a similar character and extent; if that is so, I want you to try and explain it to us ? —They are not equally serious ; there was pigmentation of the skin in one case. 53. You did not hear or understand that there was an explosion of coaldust in Kelly's case ?— In every mine there is a lot of dust in the atmosphere. 54. If those burns had been sustained by any means other than gas ? —lf they were the same in extent and depth. 55. Then there is really no distinction between the burns ?—There is a distinction, as I have already said. 56. But if they are of the same extent and character ?—There are always minute particles of carbon driven into the skin in the gas-burns I have seen.
Wellington, Friday, 23rd October, 1914. Percy Gates Morgan, Director of Geological Survey of New Zealand, sworn and examined. (No. 22.) 1. The Chairman.] What is your position, Mr. Morgan ? —I am Director of the Geological Survey of New Zealand. I was formerly Director of the Waihi School of Mines. Previous to that I was engaged for five years in coal-mining. lam Chairman of the Board of Examiners under the Mining and Coal-mines Acts, a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining Engineers, a Fellow of the Geological Society, a member of the Seismological Society of America, and of other scientific societies. 2. I understand you have a statement to make ?—Yes, I have prepared a statement regarding the Huntly disaster. It is as follows : I visited Ralph's Mine on Tuesday, 29th September, in company with Professor H. B. Dixon, Mr. F. Reed, Mr. J. Bishop, Mr. W. Wood, Mr. G. Langford, and others, and ao-ain on Friday, the 2nd October, in company with Messrs. Reed and Alexander Penman. The evidences of explosion in the main haulage-road consisted of broken coal-tubs, timber plentifully marked by small pieces of coal or stone and rounded on some edges, falls of roof, &c. At one place an opening
20—C 14.
C—l 4.
154
[P. G. MORGAN.
had been blown into a bord at a higher level. The timber thrown down by the explosion had been replaced, and the road had been to a great extent cleared of debris, so that it was difficult to form an opinion concerning the degree of violence, but on the whole it seemed to me that the explosion was not so violent as might have been expected. The facts that in places the haulage-road is wet, and that one portion is driven through the shaly clay underlying the coal would help to explain this. In No. 5 section fine coal waslpiled against the sides of the bords and other workings. In places the floor was swept clean, except for small lumps of coal here and there, timber was overthrown, and falls on the roof had taken place. At one spot a coal-tub had been smashed to pieces, and at another rails were torn up. On the other hand, some timber remained in place, and at one face a full tub of coal remained practically undisturbed, although only a few feet away the evidence of the explosion was very strong. At a fall in No. 5 bord, stated to be in part an old fall, firedamp was present in some quantity both on 29th September and 2nd October. On the latter date brattice had been brought close to the south end of the fall, and a good current of air was passing. It may therefore be inferred that firedamp was being emitted in considerable quantity from the roof at the time of my visits. In the adjoining bord, No. 6, which is connected with No. 5 by cut-throughs or stentons, was found the body of John Martin (No. 43). I was present on the 2nd October when his coat was found by Mr. Alexander Penman. The spot is not where marked on a map I have seen, but slightly to the westward of the stenton nearest the falls in Nos. 6 and 5 bords. I may here state that I saw a pair of rails protruding from the north end of the fall in No. 5 bord for about 10 ft. These rails have been mentioned by other witnesses at the inquiry, and it has been suggested that Martin was about to enter No. 5 bord in order to lift them when his naked light ignited an explosive mixture of firedamp and air. I quite concur with the opinions already expressed that there was a considerable emission of firedamp from the fall in No. 5 bord previous to the explosion—that this, mixed with air, was ignited by Martin, and that the resulting gas-explosion was continued as a coaldust explosion to the haulageroad, whence it reached past No. 6 cabin in one direction and to the top of the main shaft in the other. It is certainly impossible to determine the amount of explosive mixture ignited by Martin, nor is this matter of great importance. Since, however, varying opinions have been expressed, I may be allowed to discuss the question. It seems to me probable that there was a comparatively large body of firedamp in No. 5 bord at the time of the explosion. Some of this would be too pure to explode, whilst some, largely by diffusion, would have formed an explosive mixture with the air present. At the moment of the explosion some firedamp, though not necessarily in large quantities, must have entered Nos. 4 and 6 bords from No. 5 bord. If, however, Martin ignited the firedamp at the point where his body was found, there must have been a large amount of the gas present in No. 6 bord, filling it to the door at the south end. In this case Martin could not have entered the bord by means of the door, for on passing through he would have ignited the gas, unless his light was blown out, and unless he had made no attempt to relight it till he had walked some distance. On the other hand, since much the easier route to Nos. 5 and 6 bords was through the door, it is worth while pointing out that the section of No. 6 bord is such that a moderate amount of firedamp could enter from No. 5 bord and accumulate where the roof is high a chain or two north of the door. Thus Martin could have passed through the door, lighted his lamp, if it was blown out, and walked for a chain or more with the lamp in his hand. Then, perhaps on raising the lamp to his head, he ignited the explosive mixture. Again, he may have been entering the stenton near which his body was found, and there encountered an explosive mixture just beginning to issue from No. 5 bord; but this view would require a degree of coincidence, which it is hardly reasonable to assume. The injuries sustained by Martin are consistent with the opinion that he was hurled a chain or more by the initial explosion, but not so much so with the opinion that he was struck down where he stood. General appearances in bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 indicate that the explosion was not of intense violence in this locality —the seat of the initial explosion. This is in accord with experience in other parts of the world. It seems to me to indicate also that the quantity of air and firedamp mixture that exploded was not large. This is not to say, however, that there was not possibly a great deal of firedamp present. I believe there was a considerable body of firedamp in No. 5 bord, but much of this was mixed with less air than was required for an explosion. There was, of course, also some firedamp diluted with air below the explosive limit. Evidence has been given showing that there was a very large accumulation of firedamp in No. 5 section of Ralph's Mine six days after the explosion. This alone shows that this portion of the mine must be regarded as " gassy "or " fiery," and probably comparable with the Kaitangata Mine in that respect. Hence, for the present at any rate, safety-lamps are absolutely necessary. It ought to be pointed out that bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 are on or near the summit of a small dome or short anticline, a structure known to all with oilfield experience as favouring the accumulation of gas in the strata. It is therefore probable that the strata immediately over these bords contained a large amount of inflammable gas under pressure, and that this was liberated previous to and after the explosion by cracks or fissures communicating with the fall in No. 5 bord. Whether this view is correct or not for the particular case under consideration, it is evident that any similar domes or anticline in the Waikato coal-mines ought to be regarded as potentially dangerous unless the contrary is proved. The suggestion has been made that the Huntly disaster had a connection with the eruption at White Island on or about the 11th September. Though unfortunately attended by loss of life, this eruption was quite local in its effects, and did not give rise to tremors perceptible on the mainland. I have a letter from Mr. Matthew Paul, Inspector of Mines, a part of which reads as follows : " With regard to the suggestion that the men were overwhelmed with a landslip from the cliff near their quarters, I might state that the cliff referred to intact; further, that there is no deposit for several chains from its base. The houses were built well clear of this cliff, but, unfortunately, in a direct line with the new blowhole, and the debris seems to have been thrown out towards the south-east bay, carrying everything with
155
C.—l 4.
P. G. MORGAN.
it. Formerly the landing at this bay was all rough slippery boulders, which not only made landing difficult but also dangerous on account of the heavy surf. Now all these boulders have disappeared, leaving a nice sandy beach. that millions of tons were thrown out; even now the craterbed, which covers an area of 40 acres, is covered to an average depth of 20 ft., and taking 14 cubic feet to the ton gives one some idea of the magnitude of the eruption, not dealing with what has gone out to sea, changing the bay, as already described." The hypothesis supported by John Milne and others, that there is a connection between seismic disturbances and colliery disasters, remains unproved and has found little acceptance. "La Science Seismologique," 1907, by Comte de Montessus de Ballore, refers to this subject on pp. 272 et seq. of one paragraph is as follows : " The search for a possible correlation, at all events A a hoped-for correlation, between seismic phenomena and firedamp explosions in coal-mines has given rise to researches which were so much the more ardent, since it was a question of foreseeing a great disaster, and since [seismic L movement propagated in terrestrial strata seemed a priori capable not only of facilitating the disengagement of gases included in beds of combustible mineral, but also of affording .a means of predicting such a disengagement. Thus the problem is one of great interest; but, unfortunately, it is very.necessary to recognize that success has not attended these efforts, and earthquakes in no way serve in the prediction of these dangerous explosions." If any connection does exist, it is a remote one, such as that between sunspots and a good or bad harvest. The following suggestions for the prevention of similar disasters for the most part do not cover any fresh ground : (a) Strict and frequent inspection of old or partly abandoned workings; (6) increased ventilation; (c) watering dusty roads and places; (d) use of inert dust; (c) use of "permitted explosives" only; (/) use of safety-lamps —oil or electric. For information concerning the use of watering and of inert dust an article in the Colliery Engineer, July, 1914, pp. 739-44, by George S. Rice (Chief Mining Engineer, U.S. Bureau of Mines) may be mentioned. According to Mr. Rice, watering is very effective, and is by no means out of date. I would further advocate : (1) Experimental tests of coaldusts from all New Zealand mines; (2) frequent analyses of mine-air, especially in returns; (3) one or more rescue-apparatus stations (this was recommended in 1913, and again in 1914, by the Boards of Examiners under the Mining Act and Coal-mines Act; (4) increased opportunity of technical education for all classes of miners. 3. Mr. Wilford.] Have you submitted this report which you have now produced to the Commission to the Minister of Mines ?—No, I have this morning enclosed a copy of it in an envelope addressed to the Under-Secretary for Mines. 4. Had the Under-Secretary seen it before it was presented to this Commission ?—I have not the slightest idea. 5. Have you forwarded it to the Under-Secretary for the Minister I—l1 —I simply addressed it to the Under-Secretary, to do with it as he wishes. 6. Then, the Minister will be able to get it ? —Yes. 7. Have you a mine-manager's certificate ?—No. 8. Are you eligible to sit for a mine-manager's certificate ? —Yes. 9. When were you last occupied in coal-mining ?—ln 1895. 10. Where ? —At Walton Park, Green Island, near Dunedin. 11. How old were you then ? —About twenty-seven. 12. Were you then undergoing your course at the University ? —lt was after the end of my course. 13. Were you working in the mines as part of the course required by the University ? —No. The time required for my course was twelve months, but I put practically five years in the mines. I was earning my living as a miner. 14. In what capacity were you working in the mine ?—ln many capacities. 15. Hewing at the face ? —Yes. 16. And trucking ? —No, except that we did our own trucking from the face. 17. Did you ever see firedamp in a mine before you visited Huntly ?—Yes. 18. Where ? —ln the Brunner Mine, Sydney Harbour Collieries, and elsewhere—l cannot rememberall the occasions. I have seen gas hundreds of times in the laboratory. 19. You say in your report, " It may therefore be inferred that firedamp was being emitted in considerable quantity from the roof of the fall." Did you estimate the quantity of firedamp which would probably be present in the bord in which Martin met his death when you visited the place ? — I could not estimate it, because it was above the fall. 20. At the time of your visit, would there be hundreds of thousands of cubic feet ?—No. 21. Was there 50,000 cubic feet ?—No. 22. What would it be ? —Whatever area of free space there was above the fall: 300 or 400 cubic feet, or more. That was on my second visit. 23. Have you had much success in estimating in the course of your professional career ? Do you remember estimating in a geological report which you made that there were 636,000,000 tons of coal in the Grey Valley ?—Yes. 24. Do you adhere to that ?—Certainly. As stated in my report, however, the estimate was made on as optimistic a basis as was justifiable. 25. Do you know that there is a Royal Commission being set up to make inquiries into the matter, because it is found that there is not that much coal there ? —I do not know it. 26. Do you know that that has been recommended ? —No, I do not know that. 27. Do you remember making an estimate in regard to the Kotuku Oilfields ?—No. 28. Did you show them where to bore for oil ? —No. 29. Did you have something to do with it ?—I made a report on the subject and recommended where three prospecting bores should be put down. 30. You indicated the sites ?—Yes.
C—l 4.
156
[P. G. MORGAN.
31. Was there any oil found there : were you wrong ? —No, I was not wrong. 32. But there is no work going on there now ? —That may be. I made a report which stated all the facts, and allowed any one to draw his own conclusions. It was open for any one to conclude that it was not worth while putting down prospecting bores. 33. In regard to your anticline theory, it assumes that there was gas at the apex ?—Yes, that is the general theory. 34. Then, in spite of that theory, the gas which caused the disaster at Huntly was on the leg of the anticline ? —No. 35. It was not at the apex, was it ?—Why not ? [Plan and section of bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 discussed.] 36. In this bord No. 6, that would surely be called the leg of the anticline and not the apex-?— Do you not see the section, which shows the gas at the top of the slope ? 37. It is' not on the apex where Martin was burned ? You would not say that he was right at the apex at the time of the explosion ? —I did not say where he was. 38. If the mixture had been too rich it would not have exploded ? —No, but Martin's light would have gone out. 39. If he had passed through that door it is not possible that he could have proceeded down the bord with his lamp still alight ?—No, because it would have gone out if the firedamp mixture had been too rich. 40. Do you agree with Sir R. A. 8. Redmayne's theory, that at the point of origin an explosion is less violent than it is later on ?—I think that the gas-explosion was a good deal less violent than the coaldust explosion which followed. 41. The explosion at the point where Martin was was less violent than that which followed the explosion of the coaldust ?—Yes. 42. It was increased by the coaldust as it travelled ? —I should think so. 43. Do you know anything about the explosives which are used in mines ?—No, practically nothing except what I have read of them. 44. Do you know that according to official British statistics for 1912 there were three accidents caused through the use of monobel ? —I do not know that. 45. You would not deny it ? —No, if it is in the British statistics I would freely admit it. May I say that I consider all explosives dangerous in a coal-mine. 46. The Chairman.'] You mean that it is impossible to get an explosive which is absolutely safe ? —Certainly. 47. Mr. Wilford.] Are you aware that during .1912 monobel was condemned in England, and monobel No. 1 was put on the permitted list ? —I do not know the date, but lam aware that that is so. 48. Mr. Dowgray.] You said that there was no safe explosive ?—I think that is a matter of common knowledge. 49. Mr. Wilford.] It is agreed, I think, that a non-flame-producing explosive is less dangerous than a flame-producing one, and that if you can get a non-flame-producing explosive that is the one you should use ? —That is so. 50. Do you know that in 1911 there were 34,000 lb. of monobel imported into this country ; and in 1912, after it was taken off the permitted list in the Old Country, there were 42,000 lb. imported into this country ?—I have heard that from Mr. Reed. 51. Can you tell me whether a serious explosion at Barnsley Main Colliery was caused by the use of monobel ?—I have heard that that is so. 52. From your experience of the Taupiri Mine, are you satisfied that it is safe for that mine to be worked without safety-lamps ? —I would not like to be responsible for working it without safetylamps. 53. If you had the authority to prevent the company from working the mine without safetylamps would you do so ?—Possibly not. 54. You would not: would you stop them from working unless they used safety-lamps ? —You mean, if the whole responsibility rested upon me ? I can hardly say what I would do in that case, but if I wished to be on the safe side I would certainly order the use of safety-lamps. 55. "Would a safety-lamp have saved Martin's life ? —Probably. 56. Is there any doubt about it ? —Certainly, but there is not a great amount of doubt about it. That safety-lamp which was carried by Mr. Reed might have caused an explosion. It is possible for the gauge of some classes of safety-lamps to get red hot. Humanly speaking, what you wish me to say is correct —namely, that there would have been no explosion if Martin had had a safety-lamp and had used it intelligently. 57. If a deputy had inspected that bord before Martin went in, must he have discovered gas there —say, half an hour before ? —He would almost certainly have done so. 58. Mr. Tunhs.] On the question of explosives, do you know that monobel is responsible for only three accidents out of 23,000,000 shots ?—No. 59. Do you know that monobel was allowed to be used in Great Britain for twelve months after it was taken off the permitted list, in order that the change could be made in the use of explosives and the manufacture of it adjusted ?—No, I do not know that it was such a long time as that, but I am quite willing to accept the statement that twelve months was given. 60. Now, in your statement you refer to a coincidence which it is hardly reasonable to assume —that Martin may have been entering the stenton near which his body was found, and there encountered an explosive mixture just beginning to issue from No. 5 bord. Why should there not be such a coincidence as that —that there should be a sudden emission of gas just at that time ? You see the fall which probably produced that gas had to take place some time ? —Yes.
P. G. MORGAN.]
157
C—l 4.
61. Why should the emission of gas not have taken place just before Martin entered: there is no reason why that should not have happened ?—lt is more likely that it began some little time before. 62. Why is it more likely to have taken place some little time before I —lf Wear was there on the Wednesday, three days before, and even if there was little or no gas there then, the odds are very small that the emission took place just before Martin entered the place. 63. Wear says there was no gas there then ?—Yes. It is far more likely that the emission of gas commenced in the sixty-odd hours preceding the Saturday morning of the fatality than in the short interval of one or two hours at the most just before Martin arrived. It is a question of probabilities. 64. Supposing it is shown that the under-manager traversed that part on the day before the explosion (Friday) with a naked light, does not that increase the probability of the emission of gas having occurred just prior to the accident ?—Yes, that would make the probabilities more equal. 65. And therefore the coincidence more likely ? —Yes. 66. You are not prepared to say that it was impossible for the fall to have taken place and the emission of gas to have occurred within, say, an hour before the accident happened ?—No, I would not say it was impossible ; the odds are against that, however. 67. The odds were against Brocklebank getting out alive if there had not been a broken air-pipe protecting him just where he was ? —Exactly. 68. What were the odds against the air-pipe being broken just where he wanted it ? They were pretty heavy ?—Yes. 69. You have said that it seems to you probable that there was a comparatively large body of firedamp in No. 5 bord at the time of the explosion. —Yes. 70. You agree with Professor Dixon's evidence upon that point ?—I agree, so far as I can remember what he said. 71. You said that " evidence had been given showing that there was a very large accumulation of firedamp in No. 5 section of Ealph s Mine six days after the explosion. This alone shows that this portion of the mine must be regarded as ' gassy ' or ' fiery,' and probably comparable with Kaitangata Mine in that respect." You are assuming that there was a large accumulation of firedamp ; you are not testifying that there was ?—No, I judge that from what I was told by Mr. Bennie, Mr. Reed, and others. 72. You say that this indicates that the mine at that point must be regarded as fiery since the explosion ?—Strictly speaking, it was proved only that it was gassy at that particular time. I know nothing about the state of the mine before the explosion. 73. But the fact that this large amount of gas was found after the explosion does not necessarily indicate that it was gassy before the explosion ?—No, not necessarily. 74. You state that " it is therefore probable that the strata immediately over these bords contained a large amount of inflammable gas under pressure." If that is correct, as to the presence of gas in the strata, would not a very slight seismic disturbance be enough to liberate that gas ?—I do not think so. 75. Might not that have caused the fall ?—No, I do not think so. 76. What would cause the fall ?—The nature of the strata and the force of gravity, which would be the principal factor. 77. Would it not come to a. climax at a particular moment ?—No, the force of gravity is uniform. You see, this was an old fall, and " once a fall, always a fall." The final cause may have been simply the action of the atmosphere on the shale or other material forming the roof causing it to flake. 78. There having been a fall there before, would it not be more likely to yield to contraction of the earth or a tremor than if there had been no fall ?—lf there had been a perceptible tremor. 79. What do you mean by a perceptible tremor ? —One that can be felt by a trained observer without an instrument. Ido not mean micro-seisms or minute tremors, but one that is perceptible to the senses. 80. If the force of gravity is uniform, might not a contraction of the earth or a tremor which is not perceptible to the observer be sufficient to have some effect on the strata ?—Only a very minute effect. 81. Why should gravity have a greater effect than actual movement of the earth ?—I certainly think that the force of gravity would have a greater effect than a minor tremor. Minute tremors are numerous : in fact, the crust of the earth is always more or less in a state of tremor. 82. You cannot distinguish between the result of these constant tremors and that of the force of gravity ?—I think so. 83. May not a tremor be sufficient to disturb the balance ?—lt might be a contributing factor. 84. It is not such a thing as to call for derisive comment such as you quoted from M. de Montessus de Ballore ?—lt is considered to be too remote a cause. 85. You are dealing with a scientific matter which at present may be considered impossible, but which in a decade may be regarded as an accomplished fact. Not long ago people would have been laughed at for suggesting the carrying-on of warfare from air-ships. It is possible that a little more scientific knowledge may show an intimate connection between these two things ?—Not an intimate relation, but perhaps a perceptible connection. 86. A greater relation than you are prepared to admit at the present time ?—Yes, may be. 87. Our French friend whom you quoted may then have to laugh on the other side of his mouth ? —He admits that perhaps more delicate instruments may indicate these delicate minute tremors, and therefore that some day a connection may be traced between them and firedamp emissions. 88. And Milne admits the hypothesis that there is a connection between seismic disturbances and colliery disasters ?—Yes, but I do not know what his exact views were at the time of his death.
158
a—l 4.
fp. G. MORGAN.
89. The Chairman.] How long is it since lie died ?—Two or three years ago ; but lie wrote upon the subject about twenty years ago. The earliest discussions were thirty or more years ago. 90. Mr. Tunks.] The subject has been taken up at a much later date than that ?—Yes, there was extensive discussion about ten or twelve years ago ; but there has not been much lately, so far as I know. 91. You will admit that the eruption at White Island and the disaster do'coincide ?—They were probably within two days of one another—possibly within thirty hours. 92. Mr. Wilford.] Were you aware that in the recent exposure at Home, made by Mr. Philip Snowden, it was shown that seventy-six shareholders of Nobel's were Germans, and amongst these were three German banks and five German Army officers ?—I did not know that. I knew there were many German shareholders. 93. The Chairman.] Has the weight of the atmosphere indicated by the barometer anything to do, in your opinion, with these falls in the mine ? Is there any connection between the two ?—I do not think that barometric variations are important in causing firedamp to issue from the coal, but if there are any old workings containing firedamp a sudden fall would favour the issue of gas into the new workings. Again, a sudden rise would affect the earth's crust more than minute seismic tremors. 94. We have had a table put in showing the barometer at over 30 in. ?—Yes, and according to Mr. Bates there was a sudden rise of the barometer ; that might have had some little influence. 95. Any sudden change ?—Yes. 96. Mr. Brown.] That is an acknowledged fact by most mining men ? —Yes ; and therefore all collieries have to keep a barometer at the mine-mouth. 97. Mr. Dowgray.] When you visited the mine on the 29th September did you discover a great quantity of gas ?—The only gas which I thought serious was at the fall in No. 5 bord. Mr. Reed got several tests of from 1 to 2 per cent, in his lamp, but I did not see them very clearly except in one case where I thought I saw a slight cap. 98. A 2-per-cent. cap ?—No, probably below that. 99. In what part was that ?—That was in No. 5 section, at the place where a full truck of coal was standing near a face. A little way off the floor was swept clean. Mr. Reed called out that he had got a cap, and we all went in, but it could not be got again, I think, because the air had been too much disturbed by the number of people who went in there. 100. You stated that the presence of a large quantity of gas after the explosion was no indication that the mine was a gassy mine ?—I said it was no proof that the mine was gassy before the explosion. 101. Does it not prove to you that the strata contained an extraordinary amount of gas ? —Not extraordinary by any means, but a large amount—not, of course, anything approaching the quantity which is found in Pennsylvania and elsewhere in oilfields. The strata at Huntly do not necessarily contain much gas compared with the quantity found in oil-bearing countries. 102. But they certainly contain more gas than is found in most of the coalfields of New Zealand ? —Yes, so far as I know. Of course, most of the coal-mines here are worked almost on the surface, and this gives the gas a better chance of escaping than if they were worked at depth and from shafts. For example, the Denniston and Millei'ton mines are not gassy. 103. The State mine is not worked near the surface ? —Point Elizabeth ? Well, there is firedamp there. One section is worked with safety-lamps, or at least it was when I was there in 1910. 104. Mr. Brown.] Mr. Wilford was questioning you about monobel; can you name the mine where the accident occurred through the use of monobel ?—The Barnsley Main Colliery, in England. 105. Would you be surprised to learn that it occurred in the intake airway ?—No. 106. If three shots were bored into the strata and one or two did most of the work, what would happen with the other ?—You would probably have a blow-out shot. 107. And flame ?—Yes, aflame would be produced. 108. And most explosives, you think, would do the same thing ?—Yes, all ordinary explosives are more or less flame-producing. 109. And more so if they have not got sufficient work to do ?—Yes, there is always a flame if they are exploded in the open.
John MoGill, Deputy, sworn and examined. (No. 23.) 1. Mr. Tunks.] You are a deputy in Ralph's Mine ? —Yes. 2. I understand that during the week prior to the accident you had had instructions to get rails out ?—Yes. 3. Who were those instructions from ?—Mr. Gowans, the under-manager. 4. Where were you to get the rails from ? —The winch-level. 5. That is in what district ?—The little dip section : you have to go through No. 5 to get there. 6. Were you able to get the rails out for Mr. Gowans ? —No. 7. Did you know that anybody else had been told off to get them out on the Stafcurday ? —No. 8. When did you last see Mr. Gowans ?—Friday afternoon. 9. At about what time ?—About 3.30. 10. Where did you see him I —At the foot of the ladder. 11. That is where you generally got your instructions from him ?—Yes. 12. I want you to state in your own words what took place when you met Mr. Gowans ?—He asked me if I had two men to spare during the week to try and get some rails out for Mr. Smith's section : he said they were short of rails. On the Friday afternoon he had come through to Bond's dip and from Bond's dip through No. 5 section he had come the return airway.
J. MCGILL.]
159
C—l 4.
13. Mr. Wilford.] How did you know he came through that way ? —He told me then, and requested me to try and get the rails out; but, unfortunately, I had to send one of the men whom I had intended to send to get the rails with a miner because he could not work on his own. The man whom I sent with the minor was John Robinson, who lost his life. 14. Mr. Tunks.] What sort of light was he (Mr. Gowans) carrying ?—An ascetylene-lamp. 15. Had he come through that door ? —There was no other way out. 16. You know that part yourself ? —Yes. 17. And you were right up close to the door, were you not ?—Within 10 yards from the cutthrough, every night in the week. 18. But you did not go through the door ?—No. 19. I should like to know whether, if these rails had been got out from No. 5 during the week, while you were in charge, you would have considered it necessary to make an inspection or examination of that part ? —Yes. 20. It would have been part of your duty as deputy to do so ? —Yes. 21. I consider it would be equally Mr. Smith's duty to do so ?—Yes, and I am of opinion that Mr. Smith was on his way to do so. 22. Why ? —His coat was got out on the main road, and he was in No. 5 section, so that he had no other object to take him through where those men were going. 23. Mr. Wilford.] That is to say, you are of opinion that Martin got into No. 5 bord before Smith had time to inspect it ?—Yes, Martin had got ahead of Mr. Smith. There is no question about that. 24. Was Mr. Smith the man whose duty it was that morning to inspect prior to the men going in ?—Yes, unless he told his deputy to do it. 25. Either he or his deputy, if he told him ?—Yes. 26. Then, if Mr. Smith was the man who had to inspect prior to the men going in, he failed to make his examination before the men got in ?—Martin had got ahead of him. 27. Then Smith failed to inspect before Martin got in ? —Yes. 28. Then he allowed Martin to get in before he had inspected ? —No. 29. Martin got in ahead of him ?—Mr. Smith gives the instructions in the cabin, and they go down. They are supposed to wait at No. 5. He would go in ahead of them, as any of the deputies would do. The deputy would examine the place and come back through the door. 30. Do you know whether Smith had a safety-lamp that morning ? —We cannot say. 31. Was Smith's body identified ? I think so. 32. Was there any safety-lamp found near where Smith's body was ?—We have not cleaned up that place yet. 33. Are you clearly and certainly of opinion that Smith could not have got in front of Martin ?— Yes. 34. You feel positive of that ? —I am certain that Martin had got ahead of Mr. Smith. 35. Do you know the door that opens into No. 6 bord, at which point Martin's body was found ? —Yes. 36. Had that door a lock on it ?—No. 37. Are you positive there was no lock upon that door ? —Yes. 38. Did that door open into a bord which was not frequently used by the men ? —That door opened into No. 5 section. 39. Did that door open into bord No. 6, which was not frequently used ? —No. 6 is the bord straight down from that door. 40. Is it the way to get into No. 6 if you come up the jig ?—Yes. 41. You give your positive oath that there was no lock upon that door ? —Yes. 42. You know that one is required by the Act ?—Yes. 43. Why was not one put on ?—That is not in my line at all. 44. You heard Mr. Fletcher give evidence ?—I was there, yes. 45. You heard him admit that there was no lock on that door ?—Yes. • 46. And that he knew that the Act said the door must be locked ? —Yes. 47. Now, in regard to this conversation you had with Mr. Gowans on the Friday afternoon at 3 o'clock, did you give evidence at the inquest ? —Yes. 48. Covering, I think, over a page of typewritten matter ? —Yes. 49. Were you asked one single question upon the subject you are now giving evidence upon ? — No. 50. How long is it since you gave evidence ?—I gave evidence about the 24th September. 51. Have you ever made that statement that you made this afternoon, between the time you gave evidence on the 24th September and to-day, the 23rd October ? —Yes. 52. Where ? —ln the mine. 53. When ?—On the 21st of this month, to Mr. Fletcher. 54. Did you tell him about it ?—Yes. 55. And no questions were asked you on the subject by anybody at the inquest ? —No. 56. Your opinion is that Martin was going to get rails that morning ?—Yes. 57. And you confirm the suggestion that was made by me in the course of my address to the Commission, that Martin was undoubtedly on his way for rails ? —Yes. 58. Have you ever seen gas in Ralph s Mine ? —Yes. 59. Frequently ?—Very nearly every time that it was reported in the old workings report-book. [fc was my duty to go in and clear it. 60. Do you think you cleared it fifty times ?—No. 61. About twenty —in the old workings ? —Three times in No. 7. I have cleared gas out of the old workings five times.
a—l 4.
160
[J. MCGILL.
62. How many times have you known the presence of gas there : when you have not cleared it out somebody else has ? —I only know when I have cleared it —five times. 63. Have those been cases where the gas has bled out of the coal ? —Yes. 64. Not from a fall, but from bleeding ? —All from falls. 65. And then bleeding afterwards ? —Yes. 66. Have you seen gas in the face where men are working ?—Never in Ralph's. 67. In the Extended Mine ? —I was never in the Extended. 68. Have you ever seen a gas-accumulation where a bore has been made ?—Yes. 69. Have you seen cases where the men have been able to light up the accumulation of gas when a bore has been made and left for a time ? —Yes, very often; but not in Ralph's. 70. Where, then ?— Millerton. 71. You know Molesworth ?—Yes. 72. He told us that on one occasion they bored a hole and left it to go for crib, and when they returned he lit the gas with his lamp ? —I quite believe that. 73. How many times have you known of men being burned in Ralph's ? —Once. 74. Who ?—Kelly. 75. That was on the 9th July ? —I would not be certain of the date. 76. That was just prior to the accident ? —Yes. 77. Was he badly burned ?—I did not see him. Ido not think so —he was only a few days of! work. 78. Do you know whether he had been burned previously ? —Not to my knowledge. 79. Were you down the mine the morning of the explosion ?—No. 80. Then you know nothing of the conditions of the travelling-roads on the morning of the explosion ?—No. 81. Do you think Martin entered by the door into No. 6 bord, or some other way ? —He went by the door : I am sure of it, because my lad was one of the three who were going to meet him. 82. Did your lad go down that morning ?—Yes. 83. If the door had been locked that morning Martin could not have been killed ?—Well, I will not say anything about that. 84. You are on your oath : is that not so ?—Yes, it is so. 85. Mr. Tunks.] Is that door used much ?—lt is used a lot. This little dip section was knocked off during the strike, and everything was left in it. There was no provision for getting anything out. That was what caused the rails to be left there. There is a long dip that a horse would have to pull them up. 86. I understand that up to the time of the strike that part was being worked ? —Yes. 87. And then that door would be used continually ? —There was no door then : it was not there then. 88. How long ago was it holed through ?—About six months ago. 89. And since then has that door been used regularly ? —Yes. 90. And frequently ? —Yes. 91. In order to get out rails and various other things ? —All the working material came through that door. 92. To whom did you make the statement of your evidence at the inquest : who took your evidence before you went before the Coroner as a witness ? —Detective Cooney. 93. You did not see me before the inquest ? —No ; nor since, till to-day.
COUNSEL'S ADDRESSES. No. I.—Me. Napier. Mr. Napier : Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, —This inquiry is one the importance of which I think cannot be exaggerated, and I feel sure that upon the results of your deliberations may largely depend the future safe and successful working of the mining industry in New Zealand. I desire to express my sense of the fairness with which the inquiry has been conducted by the Commission, and I have no doubt but that in its subsequent deliberations that fairness, judicial attitude, and impartiality to all the interests represented will be continued. Now, gentlemen, the questions submitted to you by His Excellency the Governor I have shortly summarized, and I propose to very briefly refer to the evidence which has been adduced at the inquiry in so far as it applies to each of these questions. It will be impossible, of course, in the short time at my disposal to do justice to the evidence or to exhaustively consider the details of each point, and therefore I do not propose to do so ; but I shall endeavour to submit a short and accurate sketch of the evidence which each important witness has given. The first question is as to the place and nature of the accident; secondly, how the accident was caused : thirdly, what lights were used ; fourthly, were the provisions of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and the general rules, the special rules, and additional rules made in accordance with the provisions of that Act complied with, with special reference to — (a) ventilation and lighting, (6) the examination of the mine, (c) the character of the explosives used, (d) the withdrawal of workmen in case of danger, and (c) the means of escape in case of accident; fifthly, the nature and character of the working and general management of the mine ; sixthly, the efficiency of the inspection of the mine by— (a) the Inspector of Mines for the district, and (b) the workmen's inspectors ; seventhly, suggestions for the prevention of accidents and for the safe working of the mines in the future ; eighthly, is the existing law sufficient to give the Inspector of Mines power to order safety-lamps and other appliances
161
C—l 4
MR. NAPIER.]
if in his opinion such appliances are necessary; and, ninthly, generally to inquire into any matter or thing arising out of or connected with the several subjects of inquiry hereinbefore mentioned, and to suggest any amendment of the law if the same is considered necessary. These are the questions submitted. It seems to me that the first thing that one must be struck with in reading the evidence is that for practically a quarter of a century this mine which is the subject of inquiry to-day has been carried on and has been usually considered to be a safe mine—in point of fact, to be one of the safest mines in the world—and the Inspector of Mines appointed by the New Zealand Government has called it the second safest mine (the Extended Mine being the safest) in his inspectorate, after that long period of working. In considering that, the next point that one is bound to observe is that after the great explosion which has taken place the mine remains intact, the shaft remains practically uninjured —a testimony, I submit, to the solidity with which it was constructed. The explosion was a violent one, and one would naturally expect that as the result very serious, if not irreparable, injury would have been done to the mine, but such has not been the case. As to the first question, of course, there can be no doubt regarding the place and nature, of the accident. There is practically unanimity on this point. The place, according to the evidence, is proved to have been at or near the place where Martin's body was found, and the nature was the ignition of a firedamp mixture causing a dust-explosion. There are no doubts also upon the second question, which is involved in the answer I have given to the first. It is believed by every one that naked lights were used in the mine, except by the deputies. Therefore, that disposes of the first three questions. The fourth question is one upon which, there has been some conflict of evidence—as to whether the provisions of the Coal-mines Act and the general and special rules referred to in the Commission were properly and rigorously observed. The first point in this No. 4 question is ventilation, and here we have on the one side a large amount of expert testimony and the testimony of the ordinary miners, and on the other side we have the testimony of one highly placed officer in the Government service. But the main feature in regard to this particular point is that the ventilation was carried on by means of a fan and mechanism, which had been used for many years to the satisfaction of the Government Department. The officer, Mr. Reed, who contends that the ventilation was not sufficient, has only paid very few visits to the mine—indeed, only one during the last three years, until this deplorable occurrence. On the other hand, we have the evidence of the regular Inspector, the responsible officer who constantly visited the mine, and that evidence, coupled with the enormous mass of evidence tendered by the miners at the inquest, all goes to show that the ventilation was practically complete, and was satisfactorily and efficiently carried on for a great many years ; and that to-day, as during the last few years, the examining officers and the Inspector believed the extent of the -ventilation to be ample. No request was made for any other fan than the present one, but the company have voluntarily ordered a new fan of higher power, which only shows that they proposed to provide more ventilation than the law requires, and to take extra precautions for the safety of the workmen. The next subdivision is as regards the lighting, and upon that we come to the question of the lamps. Now, during the whole life of this mine, extending over a period of nearly twenty-five years, it appears to have been worked with naked lights without accident. Ido not want, of course, to interpose, in the short time I have, any authorities, but, gentlemen, you will probably look up some writers on the subject, and I think you will find that in the history of coal-mining it is a very creditable performance for twenty-five years to have elapsed without any serious accident. The naked lights were used under conditions which existed practically unchanged until the accident; and while upon that point I would like to direct your attention to the statements of Mr. Reed, whose evidence I shall have occasion to refer to later on also, and who prophesied this disaster because naked lights were used. Now, there is no evidence before the Commission that the conditions of the mine changed last December or January, when Mr. Reed for the first time became aware of the conditions prevailing. The whole of the evidence, on the contrary, shows that the conditions were practically uniform with those which obtained before. If that be so, and Mr. Reed had known the fact ten years ago of which be became aware last December, then it is fair to assume that he would have made his prophesy ten years ago ; and I ask what would have been the value of that prophecy ? If the conditions had been radically altered last Christmas, one could have understood his claim to glory, because according to his deportment it was a glory for him to have his prophecy fulfilled. The next sub-item has reference to the explosives. With regard to this matter, the outstanding feature is that the explosives used in the mine were permitted explosives according to the law of New Zealand. The term " permitted explosive "in England has a technical meaning : it has no such meaning according to our law. lam not now referring to the adequacy or otherwise of the law, or how quickly we ought to follow in the footsteps of successive amendments made in England. I am only pointing out that so far as the law of New Zealand is concerned the explosives used were permitted explosives. These were the explosives which are used in most, if not all, of the mines in New Zealand, to the knowledge of the Mines Department for many years. There was no complaint on the part of the Mines Department, or upon that of the miners themselves, or any other person, and that being so no blame can be attached to anybody in connection with the use of the explosives, which are not perhaps as harmless, or, at all events, which may be less likely to cause explosions, than the best explosives in England. Then the next point has reference to the clause regarding the withdrawal of workmen. Now, it is absolutely clear, notwithstanding the virulent denunciations of the Act by Mr. Reed, that the Inspector of Mines had full power to withdraw men from any exceptionally dangerous mine, or any part of a mine. I need not labour it, because you have heard the evidence, and I shall have to hasten my remarks in order to try and get in my main points. The law is quite clear that the workmen could have been withdrawn, and the evidence is most conclusive that the Inspector of Mines, if he had believed that any part of the mine was exceptionally dangerous within the meaning of the section, would have unhesitatingly withdrawn the men. The evidence of the manager is to the effect that if he had been ordered under that section by the Inspector of Mines to withdraw the men, he would
21—C. 14.
C—l 4.
162
:MR. NAPIER.
not have waited for an arbitration. It was a monstrous suggestion for Mr. Reed to make that the men would not have been instantly withdrawn. The notice would have been complied with, and the Arbitration Court would have sat and decided the point. That was the procedure under the statute, but it was not exercised ; and I submit that the Mines Department must be held to be competent to judge when a case calls for such action. They did not serve any notice requiring the men to be withdrawn from any part of the mine. Now, this officer, Mr. Reed, says that he considers an ignition of gas in a mine to be a sufficient reason for removing the men : he would withdraw them until the arrival of safety-lamps ; and yet, though the Department must have known of the condition in the mine, no such order was issued. The next point refers to the means of escape in the mine. That only requires to be stated. There are three shafts, and the means of escape are ample ; but it is submitted that no means, however efficient, would have enabled men to escape who were so suddenly overwhelmed by the ignition of firedamp-mixture combined with a coaldust explosion, as were those in the recent disaster. Now, upon this question, there is Mr. Reed on the one side, and five witnesses of great experience and repute on the other —Mr. Bishop, who has a unique experience in coal-mining ; Mr. Bennie, the Inspector of Mines, who has been connected with mining for nearly half a century ; Mr. Wight, who is the manager of a rival mine, and who was for ten years in this mine ; Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Wood, the present managers. lam not going to cast any stone at Mr. Reed, but I feel it my duty to point out that in an important case of this kind it is the duty of the Commission to observe and consider the demeanour of witnesses placed in Mr. Reed's position, and the nature of his statement. You will have seen that his utterances were most reckless and unqualified, and that over and over again he had to withdraw, explain, modify, and apologize for statements that he made in the box. It is true that he adheres to his main contention, but I think it must be plain to the Commission that there were constant, persistent, and momentary evasions, and that it was the work of the greatest difficulty for counsel to get him to answer the simplest question in a straightforward way. In considering his evidence upon the more vital questions involved, and what value ought to be attached to it, I submit that it is incumbent upon the Commission to consider what is the value of his evidence upon the other points of lesser importance. He seems to place reliance upon the fact, and to stake his reputation upon it, that he did suggest, or state, or prophesy last Christmas, and on four or five other occasions since, privately, confidentially, and to the Under-Secretary for Mines, that an explosion was likely to occur in Ralph's Mine. I need not repeat what I have already said, but it is obvious that the conditions in the mine having been unchanged, if he knew previously that those conditions existed he would have said the same thing. There has been no change in the condition of the mine so far as the evidence has shown, so that his prophesy is valueless. It is simply an unfortunate case where a man's prophecy of evil has come true. It often happens in the world, and we do not want to ransack history for instances that prophesies have been verified which were simply the drawing of a bow at a venture. I would like to say before passing from Mr. Reed that I do hot mean to cast stones at him, but it may be that the magnitude of this disaster has unnerved him and unbalanced his judgment. I do not impugn his knowledge, but Ido impugn his judgment. No judicial officer who listened to Mr. Reed give his evidence in the witness-box could do otherwise than come to the conclusion that he is reckless, and to a greater or lesser degree irresponsible. The next question is the nature and character of the working and management of the mine. Upon this point the evidence is overwhelming that the mine was worked according to the methods ordinarily prevailing in New Zealand, and that the pillars and other means of security for the superstructure were in accordance with the best methods of management. There is not a tittle of evidence to show that the methods of working were in any way defective. The next question is the efficiency of the inspection. The Inspector of Mines is a man of wide experience, and has been forty-seven years engaged in mining pursuits. We are to assume that he is qualified. He has been appointed by the Government of the country, and I submit that a reference to the whole of the evidence in detail shows that he performed his duties in an effective and impartial manner. It is suggested, by innuendo at all events, that he was not sufficiently aggressive—that was Mr. Reed's word. No Inspector of Mines, or other public official, ought to be aggressive. Such an officer is placed in his position to see that the law is carried out and. that his duties are performed in a manner satisfactory to the general public and his employers ; but the whole, of the correspondence, including that of a confidential nature on the file, shows conclusively that Mr. Bennie was constantly alert and alive to the necessity for fulfilling his duties in an efficient and proper manner, and that so far from favouring the persons connected with this mine he was willing to risk the failure of a public prosecution in order that he might increase the general efficiency of the supervision in the mine. Mr. Macassey : I do not think Mr. Reed said the Inspector was not sufficiently aggressive. Mr. Napier] It was something like that. The records show that Mr. Bennie constantly inspected the check inspectors' books which disclosed the workmen's ideas of the mine, and also the books of the deputies. There is no complaint throughout the whole of these years, except those of a trivial character, which were immediately provided for. It is impossible to find in those books a complaint of any importance, and not a scintilla or suggestion that the mine was ever considered dangerous. The next point deals with suggestions for the, prevention of accidents and for the future safe working of the mines. Ido not propose to deal with that; it is entirely a matter for the Commission, which will no doubt consult works of authority, and obtain the most recent knowledge on the matter. The point is this, that in connection with the working of this mine for twenty-five years no accident took place. The mine was safe, and all the workmen appear to have been working under satisfactory conditions. It seems to me from the evidence and from works I have read that however careful men may be in the working of these mines, and whatever may be the advance of science, it is almost impossible to make mining'an absolutely safe pursuit. Professor Dixon agreed with this view. Indeed, it is almost impossible to make any calling absolutely safe, but so far as safety is a relative term I think this mine is
MR. NAPIER.]
163
C—l 4
a safe one. Tke next point is :Is the existing law sufficient to give the Inspector of Mines full authority to order the use of safety-lamps and other appliances if, in his opinion, such appliances are necessary ? There can be no doubt that under the section 1 have quoted to the Commission, and Special Rule 14, that the Inspectorjof take the It is a question which any layman can decide for himself, because the interpretation of the rule and the section does not require any legal knowledge at all. If the Inspector of Mines deems that a mine, or any part of a mine, is so dangerous that in his opinion it ought to be worked with safety-lamps, he may order them to be put in, and other appliances also ; and the fact that the matter may subsequently|go before a tribunal for arbitration is not one which should one in denouncing the present law in the way that did. lam not suggesting that the existing law ought not to be amended. Our experience shows that in the making of laws which affect human duties and obligations it is constantly necessary to amend the statutes, and that the law which remains stagnant generally becomes quickly out of date. lam not suggesting that an amendment is not necessary, but I do submit that so far as these particular references are concerned the Commission will be compelled to come to this conclusion : that the Inspector has power under the present law to order the use of safety-lamps. He has done it already, and his order has been complied with. The next question is the general question which is usually appended to all such commissions, and I do not propose to address you at any length upon it. It is the usual comprehensive question which concludes a Commission of this kind : generally to inquire into any matter arising out of the previous points in the Commission, and into the existing law, and also as to whether an amendment of the law or the regulations is necessary. Regarding this point, we have a Coal-mines Amendment Bill now before us, and there is no doubt there are many beneficial provisions in it which will become law shortly. I have no doubt that the Commission will carefully scrutinize the Bill, and arrive at a fair conclusion regarding it. In conclusion, I submit that until this deplorable accident there was a universal concensus of opinion that Ralph's Mine was one of the safest in the world. No complaints of importance were ever received either from the Government Department or the miners, and any requests made for improvements were at once complied with. The principal shaft to-day, after twenty-five years, stands as secure as it did when constructed, and the mine after a terrific explosion stands practically uninjured—an unassailable testimony to its strength and solidity. The evidence as a whole, it is submitted, proves conclusively — (1.) That the provisions of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and the rules were fully observed and complied with. (2.) That the ventilation was uniformly good, and that all necessary equipment to ventilate the mine was supplied, and all necessary supervision exercised, so far as mining-conditions permitted, to secure effective ventilation. (3.) That the lighting was, under the normal conditions of the mine, safe, and was so regarded by the responsible Government officers. (4.) That sudden outbursts of gas coming from the secret recesses of the earth and causing firedamp cannot be prevented, and have not up to the present time in any country of the world been rendered harmless. (5.) That the examination of the mine was regular, thorough, and efficient. (6.) That -the explosives used were what are generally used in New Zealand mines, were permitted explosives under the New Zealand law, and were used with the concurrence of the Government mining officials. (7.) That no danger ever arose to necessitate the withdrawal of workmen, though there is ample power under the present law vested in the Inspector of Mines to order such withdrawal. (8.) That there are ample means of escape in the mine in case of accident, but that no means of escape could have saved men suddenly overwhelmed by exploded fire-damp-mixture and dust-flame. (9.) That the working of the mine was done according to the best accepted methods, and that efficient and highly qualified managers of undoubted integrity were employed. (10.) That the Government Inspector of Mines performed his duties efficiently and impartially, and that he was highly qualified with nearly half a century's experience of mining. (11.) That the men's check inspectors were capable and diligently performed their duties. (12.) That the application of inert dust to all places of a mine would be impracticable, and it is not proved that it would be effective. (13.) That watering has been shown not to be an absolute safeguard against explosions, and that watering where the dust might be dangerous was regularly carried out. (14.) That the Coal-mines Act, 1908, gives full power to the Inspector to order safety-lamps and other appliances if, in his opinion, they are necessary. This order has already been given and complied with. No. 2.—Mr. Tonks. Mr. Tanks : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,—One must approach the end of an inquiry such as this with a very strong feeling of responsibility. I desire to join with my friend Mr. Napier in thanking the Commissioners for the way in which they have dealt with us all through this matter, and the courtesy and patience they have exercised. I should also like to pay a tribute to Mr. Wilford for the way in which he has done his part in connection with the proceedings. I say frankly that he has done his part fairly and well, and that we are indebted to him for the assistance which has enabled us to prosecute the proceedings so smoothly and quickly. Now, sir, we are dealing in this inquiry with the cause of a lamentable accident which happened in one of the best-known mines in the Dominion, and one which 1 believe, according to the last report of the Mines Department, produces more coal than all the other mines in the North Island put together. It is a large employer of labour, it has ample funds, and has no need to stint or skimp its work in any direction. The point was brought out at the inquest that the company carried its own insurance. This is a minor point, but such company is not likely to be lax in the management of the mine. The directors of the company are some of the bestknown business men in Auckland, including a representative of the owners of the mine. They include also a gentleman who for many years occupied the position of Inspecting Engineer to the Mines Department of New Zealand, and who has always been recognized as an authority upon mining matters throughout the Dominion —I refer to Mr. H. A. Gordon. An extraordinary position that has arisen in this case is that every person in authority who could supply us with the evidence necessary to enable a proper conclusion to be arrived at has perished in the accident. This is an extraordinary position 5
C—l 4.
164
[MR. TUNKS.
The underground manager and all the deputies who could have thrown light upon the occurrence are gone, and we arc faced with the task of finding out the details of the cause of the disaster from such evidence as is obtainable. I shall deal with the question in the same way as my friend has done, by taking the various matters referred to in the Commission in their order. I think we must admit that it is fairly well established as to the part of the mine where the accident originated and the nature of it. No doubt it occurred in No. 5 section, No. 6 bord. Similarly there is no doubt that it was due to a gaseous mixture coming into contact with a naked light. While upon this point i wish to touch upon the possibility of the gaseous mixture being a sudden outburst of a big blower, and I also wish simply in passing to mention the possibility of it having been due, as has already been suggested, to some siesmic disturbance. This is a point to which the Commissioners can pay such attention as they think proper. We have the fact that the particular place was inspected on the 9th September, three days before the accident, and that no gas was found. We know that it was not necessary that there should be a large quantity of gas present to cause an explosion. We have had some figures from Mr. Reed which suggest that there was a tremendous quantity of gas there, but I submit to you that if there had been that quantity of gas present we should have had an explosion of a very different character, and the unfortunate man Martin would never have been seen or his body found. Professor Dixon, in his depositions at the inquest, stated that he saw no evidence of a large quantity of gas. This view is supported by the statements of Mr. Fletcher, Mr. Bishop, and Mr. Wood, who ought to and who do know the mine perfectly. Now, the large amount referred to by Mr. Reed probably might establish the fact that the gas had been there for some time, but the assumption of a smaller amount, which I suggest was all that was there, is consistent with a sudden outburst and also with the possibility of a connection with a seismic disturbance. I submit that the Commission cannot lose sight of those suggestions. Now, the ventilation has been very much criticized, but upon this point I submit that the reports of Mr. Wear, who constantly inspected the place and reported from time to time on the ventilation, together with the statements of Mi-. Bennie and Mr. Fletcher, should be taken as against Mr. Reed's theories, because his statements are based mainly upon an examination of the plan. The ventilation could not have been very bad, because with the regular system of inspection there would have been no difficulty in detecting it. It may be that in this matter, if blame is to be allocated, it may be —I do not know that it is, because it is impossible to say —that blame may be attachable to dead men. That puts-the Commission in a very delicate position, for of the dead we speak nothing but good. The evidence is very strong that on that occasion the usual routine was followed and the men were not allowed to go forward into the mine until the deputy had examined the district. That is strongly suggested when we bear in mind that Brownlic's evidence was to the effect that the deputy met him at a similar time a fortnight, previously in a position which would indicate that he had come through this part of the mine. Now, Martin's presence is unexplained. Probably he was there to assist in getting rails. If so, and if Mr. Brownlie's evidence is correct, that the rails were to be brought through that door, the fact that that door was unlocked was immaterial. If it had had a lock on it it would have had to be unlocked. Ido not admit that Mr. Fletcher was right in saying that the door ought to have had a lock on it. That is a question of law, and not a question to be settled by Mr. Fletcher's admission. I think he was wrong in making that admission. Rule 3 has been relied upon in regard to the ventilation. Rule 3, of course, contains the words " reasonably practicable," to which some weight must be given. I myself desire in passing to draw attention to the question, which is a legal one, whether the part in question was a working-place on that particular occasion. Now, sir, I come to the question of naked lights, which involves the question of gas. Naked lights have always been used in the mine, and this raises the question as to whether Special Rule 14 was broken, and as to whether an offence has been committed by the want of the observance of this section. Now, round this point has been raised a keen controversy, and the company has been accused in the most unambiguous terms of concealing the facts. The charge was repeated and reiterated over and over again in a grossly offensive manner by an officer of the Department, who should have taken up an official attitude; but he was biased to an extraordinary degree. The evidence of concealment is of the flimsiest character, and no Magistrate could possibly convict on such a charge. I submit that the evidence on this point would fail to convince any fairminded man. In this question " the company " is the manager ; the company can only act by its agents, and if there has been concealment it must have been the concealment of the manager. We have had a great deal of evidence on this point. Then we have had Mr. Miller's opinion, based upon the facts and information supplied to him by the Inspector. Mr. Reed admits he depends upon the four cases of injuries to Conn, Rustin, Willcox, and Kelly. Ruston was not injured ; Conn and Willcox, where is the evidence in regard to them ? Dr. MacDiarmid says they were not serious cases as injuries. He did say that he considered every ignition of gas as serious, but this is the point Mr. Reed endeavours to make : that it was serious and ought to have been notified under any circumstances. But we are dealing with the law as it stands, and I submit that the evidence is perfectly clear that Mr. Fletcher was justified in not notifying these cases. But he is charged with deliberately concealing them, with endeavouring to hide these things from the Department. I submit there is not one tittle of evidence to support such a charge. On the contrary, the evidence is the other way. There is the voucher and Mr. Wood's book, to which Mr. Bennie had access. There is everything to show that Mr. Fletcher did not care a single snap of his fingers whether the Department knew or not. Then, in regard to section 62, requiring the mine-manager to notify the Inspector of all serious accidents, I think that section should be carefully considered. If the accident is serious and has to be reported, the working-place must be stopped. It must be sufficiently serious to justify cessation of work in that particular place, and that indicates what the Legislature had in mind in dealing with a serious accident. These charges that have been made against the company by Mr. Reed are not substantiated, but what position does he occupy in regard to this matter ? He said he became aware of these happenings in the mine some time back, and states that we concealed them and did not report them to the Department; also that we are guilty
MR, TUNKS.]
165
C—l 4.
of a crime because we have not installed safety-lamps because of these ignitions and the prevalence of gas. Mr. Reed has emphasized the fact that he was alive to the danger ;he feared a holocaust—a serious explosion might take place any time. Had Mr. Reed been fully alive to the position he occupies as Inspecting Engineer of the Department, what should he have done ? What does he do ? He sits down and writes six or seven letters to the Under-Secretary. It reminds, me of a man who renews his promissory note and then with a sigh he says, " Thank God that is paid." Why did not Mr. Reed, if he had those convictions, tackle the Minister, the manager, and every member of Parliament ? Why did he not move heaven and earth to save the lives of these men ? He could have taken the platform, in order to save life in this mine. To say that there was nothing to do but write those letters to the UnderSecretary is preposterous. If he held those convictions there were hundreds of courses open to him. There is not one tittle of evidence to show that the manager, or the company, or anybody connected with the company was ever made aware in the slightest degree of Mr. Reed's fears in this matter — not one tittle of evidence. Can it be said for a moment that if such advice had been sent to the manager or the company they would have done nothing in the matter ! He says, " What more was I expected to do, except to take a gun." Exactly what he should have done. He would have done his duty. I commend his zeal —he was right up-to one pomt —but I condemn him for leaving the matter at that point. Had he been more aggressive, he might have saved the lives of these men. For six months he did nothing in regard to the matter but writing these letters. Now, sir, of course the manager is to blame ! Ido not know what for. It has not been shown that any one of these cases, except that of Kelly, occurred in Ralph's Mine, and that, so far as we know, may have been the fault of some one who interfered with the ventilation. No one has denied it. Read, the testimony to the safety of the mine, given at the'inquest, by the men working in it. The manager of the company thought the mine safe, and I submit he was quite warranted in thinking so. Now, we admit there was dust in the mine—it was there for any one to see; the manager watered it. Read again what was said at the inquest. But no one had the idea that the dust was so highly inflammable as it has been proved to be. Now, what has happened ? I have told Mr. Wilford that his examination of Professor Dixon was not characterized by the same courtesy as his examination of other witnesses. Why, Ido not know. Suggestions were made as to a sample " grabbed " from a coal-scuttle, and I-expected that some revelations of a dreadful character would follow. What followed ? Absolutely nothing ; and the Professor's evidence stands unassailed. I regret that that incident occurred, and I think on mature consideration my friend will regret it also. No experiments had been made by the Department; nothing whatever was done to test this coaldust. There have been cases of heating, but they were dealt with as occasion required. Now, the ventilation was, I submit, generally sufficient, and so was the fan. The Inspector testifies to that. The new fan which is to be installed was not asked for by the Department or by the Inspector. The check inspectors tested the mine for ventilation, and their only complaint was at once met. The manager was satisfied with the ventilation, and he had good grounds. It is not suggested that the examination of the working-places was defective ; we have heard a good deal of evidence on that point. The evidence shows what was done in regard to the old workings. It was said that these old workings act as a return airway, and the Act requires them to be examined; but though they act as a return airway, they are not the return airway, and I question whether there is any liability to examine them at all; but, whether or no, they have been travelled and inspected. Now, with regard to the question of explosives, the suggestion that was made by Mr. Reed has been cleared up, and I do not think I need refer to that point; but I would like to make one remark and that is, that in anything I say or have said in regard to Mr. Reed I have no personal feeling in the matter. He did use one abusive expression in regard to the company to me, but he has apologized handsomely for it, and I want to admit that. In regard to the question of explosives, Ido not think I need labour that point. It has been shown quite clearly that the staff of the mines was ample for its requirements : a certificated manager was in charge, and another certificated manager is in charge of the Extended Mine ; deputies, trustworthy and experienced, were in charge of the supervision underground; and I submit that everything that could be done by the company has been done to make the supervision of the mine ample and safe. Now, sir, speaking generally, I think it is worthy of note that the Inspector has stated —I am not quite sure whether in his evidence at the inquest or here—that during the last two years he has received no complaint in regard to the mine. None of the miners have made any complaint to him. There was no extraordinary amount of dust, except so far as the Inspector's reports were concerned. When has it been suggested that the mine is dangerous ? Further than that, we have had evidence that he (the Inspector) had a relative working in the mine—a man from whom he was able to obtain confidential information; and with that source of information behind him there was only one point in regard to which he was informed his instructions to Mr. Fletcher had not been carried out quite so strictly as Mr. Beanie thought they should. It is a remarkable fact—a remarkable testimony to the honesty of the management. Now, sir, it is a wide question to ask whether the whole of the provisions of the Coalmines Act and the general and special rules have been carried out by the management. It would be difficult, I take it, to find any mine in which the management had been ideal. We do not expect that, but a general regard for these rules is the utmost that can be looked for in a mine where the conditions are changing from day to day. But the evidence shows that a substantial and proper attention has been given to the Act and regulations. The whole of the charges against the company come back again to the one point attempted to be made by Mr. Reed —that they left undone something that they ought to have done, then deliberately concealed it from the Department, and as a result of that this trouble has happened. It all centres round that point, and I submit to you, gentlemen, that the charges have been completely answered. I have wrung it out of Mr. Reed that nothing was concealed by the company. Now, the only other point that could possibly be made was that the company was in some way aware of the danger at the mine. I submit that the evidence has proved the contrary, that the company was of the opinion that they had in the mines here remarkably safe, remarkably well-ventilated mines,
C—l 4.
166
| MR. TUNKS.
and mines in which the workers were extremely content to work. The evidence all goes to show that. There is unlimited evidence on that point. So that there was absolutely nothing to suggest to Mr. Fletcher, unless the Commission is prepared to ascribe to him an extraordinary state of—l do not know what to call it—wickedness, one would almost say, in knowing these ignitions of gas had created such a dangerous position that theje might be an explosion in the mine at any time, causing a holocaust, and that knowing that he deliberately went on, taking no precautions and doing nothing at all to minimize the risk that he was running. This is the position that it is suggested the Commission should take up in regard to Mr. Fletcher. It is a monstrous attitude to suggest. If he were guilty of that the ('ommission could not condemn him in too strong terms, but I submit when the report is being framed no such ground for condemnation will be found. As I said before, Mr. Fletcher represents the company, which can only act through its directors and through its manager so far as the technical parts of its work in the mine are concerned. 1 submit that neither the company nor anybody connected with it can be shown to have any knowledge that would justify the remarks that have been made by Mr. Reed in his evidence against the company. Sir, I leave this matter to the Commission with the utmost confidence. Ido not propose to touch upon the other points. My friend has dealt with them in a manner of which I entirely approve. I can only endorse what he has said. We must all be deeply sensible of the responsibility that rests upon us in this matter. I could wish that Mr. Reed, occupying the responsible position that he does, had more fully appreciated the responsibility of it, and been more balanced and more judicial in the utterances which he has made here. I join with my fiiend in commending his knowledge, but I also join in condemning his judgment. No. 3. —Me. Macassey. Mr. Macassey : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen,—l have very little to say after the addresses of my friends Mr. Napier and Mr. Tunks. I desire to join with them in expressing appreciation of the fairness which the Commission has shown to the counsel. There are only two points to which I wish to refer. The first is question No. 8 of the Commission's order of reference : " To ascertain if the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to give the Inspector of Mines full authority to order the use of safetylamps and other appliances if in his opinion such appliances are necessary." I want to point out precisely what are the duties of the Inspector of Mines. Under section 55 of the Act it ir provided that— " Every Inspector under this Act shall have power to do all or any of the following things, namely : — "(a.) To make from time to time such examination and inquiry as maybe necessary to ascertain whether the provisions of this Act relating to matters above ground or below ground are complied with; " (b.) To enter, inspect, and examine any mine and every part thereof at all reasonable times by day and night, but so as not to impede or obstruct the working of the said mine ; " (c.) To examine into and make inquiry respecting the state and condition of any mine or any part thereof, and the ventilation of the mine, and the sufficiency of the special rules for the time being in force of the mine, and all matters and things connected with or relating to the safety of the persons employed in or about the mine or any mine contiguous thereto; " (d.) To exercise such other powers as may be necessary for carrying this Act into effect." And I further rely upon the report of the Commission of 1906, which expressly lays it down that the duty of the Inspector is to see that the Act and regulations are complied with. It is not for him to say how the operations of the company are being carried out. So far as Inspector Bennie is concerned, I desire to point out that he is a man of very wide experience, a man who has had forty-five years' experience in coal and gold mines. He holds his tickets by examination. He won the gold medal at the Waihi School of Mines, so that his ability and his knowledge cannot be questioned. I submit also that his integrity is beyond reproach. He has been described by Mr. Reed as a competent, capable, and diligent officer. I propose very shortly to point out the various steps which he took in connection with this mine to secure the observance of the Act and regulations. I put it to you that there is not a tittle of evidence, no suggestion, that Mr. Bennie has not done his duty. Ido not propose to go back prior to the year 1914, when in January, 1914, Inspector Bennie, at the request of Mr. Reed, obtained from Mr. Fletcher a list of the accidents in the mines for the previous two years. So far as Ralph's Mine is concerned there was only one reported burning—that was the case of Kelly, which happened in July of this year. When the mine was opened after the strike, about January of this year, Mr. Bennie made an inspection. It cannot be denied that he gave this mine more than his usual attention. He examined the mine on the 19th and 20th May, and everything was then in good order. There was no indication of gas, but on the 30th May he wrote to Mr. Fletcher drawing his attention to the coaldust there, and asked that a jet of water be used for laying the dust which accumulates. He says he did not write that memo, to suggest the coaldust was a source of danger, but in order that it might be removed on account of the inconvenience it caused to the workmen. He says further in that letter, — " There appears to be no rule or restraint as to the shot-firing carried out by the miners, and the air is continually full of smoke in the vicinity of where blasting operations are carried out, and therefore a greater volume of air is necessary to clear the atmosphere. I have to request that the above matters receive your earliest consideration and attention." Mr. Fletcher replied on the 4th June : " Your remarks have been noted." On the 2nd July Mr. Bennie again visited the mine, and found gas in No. 7 level south. That was cleared away. Then there was the memo, of the 2nd July left by Mr. Bennie with Mr. Fletcher in his report-book : — " In the little dip section old bords, three places, falls where gas has been found by Deputy D. Wear and reported, we found no trace of CH 4 gas. Coaldust on the travelling-road main dip found in dangerous quantity; the dust should be adequately watered. No. 6 level, leading to Taupiri West: coaldust in dangerous quantity on my previous visit. In view of CH 4 gas being found in this mine the dust should be removed or watered, and all shots fired by officials appointed for that purpose. , '
MR. MACASSEY.]
167
C—l 4.
That was Mr. Bennies minute put in the company's book on the 2nd July, 1914. On the 9th July Mr. Fletcher reported the accident to Kelly, and on the 11th July the Inspector wrote to Mr. Fletcher as follows :— "In view of the recent finding of CH 4 gas in Ealph's Mine, and the dangerous accumulation of coaldust in the mine generally, but more especially in the main travelling-road adjacent to the main haulage-dip, and also at No. 6 level leading to the working-places at the level and to the Taupiri West section. On my visit of inspection to the mine on the 19th and 20th ultimo I noticed the above conditions, and on the 30th of the same month I wrote you and requested your immediate attention as regards spraying the dust with water to remove the danger, also as regards the dust from the coal-cutting machines, and the firing of shots by miners without restriction, &c. On my visit of inspection on the 2nd instant, when my visit was especially to examine places in the old workings of the mine, I observed that dry coaldust was still there in dangerous quantities; in fact, little or nothing had been done to comply with my request of the 30th May ultimo. On the 2nd instant I found CH 4 gas in two places adjacent to the place where Kelly got burned with CH i gas on the 9th instant, reported to me by you on the 9th and received by me on the 10th. In my memo, left in your mine report-book in your office on the 6th instant, I wished to impress you as to the dangerous state of the mine through dry coaldust and CH 4 gas. In view of the happening on the 9th instant I now request that shot-firers be appointed as required by Special Rule 25 (d), and that the dangerous accumluation of dry coaldust in the mine's travelling-roads, or elsewhere in the mine, be dealt with in an adequate and efficient manner. Failure to comply with my request will be followed by prosecution for breaches of the Act, &c, thereunder." And Mr. Fletcher replied to that on the 20th July : — " In view of the reporting of firedamp by the examining deputies in this mine, I have authorized that all shots shall be fired by the men in charge of each section. The travelling-roads are receivingattention, the dust must be watered regularly. Attached herewith please find extract from my reportbook regarding the ignition of gas when W. Kelly was burnt." Then followed Mr. Fletcher's description of the burning of Kelly. As to Mr. Bennies inspection of the mine, he has told you that he did not find on his visits any gas in the working-places, but only in the old workings. There is no obligation on the company under the Act and regulations to inspect the old workings, but Mr. Bennie asked Mr. Fletcher to have that inspection made, and he did it. It is the duty of Mr. Bennie not to report to Mr. Eeed but to the Under-Secretary, and on the 24th July he wrote to the Under-Secretary informing him of the accidents in Ralph's Mine to Kelly, explaining the circumstances and reporting the finding of gas. He added, — " At the time of my visit the air-current swept through the full length of the drive, and carried away any gas coming from the cavity. I also examined four other places where gas had been found and reported by the examining officers ; in one of them only I found gas, steps are being taken to ventilate those places and clear out t*he gas. A new air-shaft is being sunk and is now almost completed, and a new and powerful Sirocco fan of 200,000 cubic feet capacity is to be installed there. At present the quantity of air passing through the mine close to the scene of the accident, as measured by me on the 14th instant, was 23,280 cubic feet per minute, for an average of seventy-seven men, equal to 300 cubic feet per man, exclusive of 17,000 cubic feet passing into and through the little dip (old workings). There is on an average air equal to 300 cubic feet per man per minute passnig through the whole mine-workings. In consequence of the ignition of gas on the 9th instant I have notified the mine-manager that in compliance with Special Rule 25 (d) all shots fired in the mine must be done by an officer specially appointed for that purpose, and that all roads and places where there is dry coaldust in dangerous quantities must be removed or made damp by water. This is now being done." Then, on the 4th August the Under-Secretary wrote to Mr. Bennie in reference to Kelly's accident, asking him to reply as to whether he recommended a prosecution of the manager for the negligence by which a disastrous explosion might have been caused. Mr. Bennie was asked for a report on that matter. He replied on the 7th August, as follows : — " In reply to your memo, of the 4th instant, I beg to state that after careful consideration I am of opinion that to prosecute Mr. Fletcher, the mine-manager, for a breach of Special Rule 14, in the case of William Kelly, burnt by an ignition of gas in the company's mine on the 9th July last, I may fail to get a conviction, but the moral effect of such a prosecution will be to produce more effective supervision, the value of which we cannot foresee. In view of the alleged previous burnings by gas in the mines, apart from that of the 4th instant, it may render it necessary to prosecute. I, as an Inspector of Mines, receive no help from the Miners' Union or their check inspectors, who are, as at present con stituted, the creation of the mining-company's directors. I have had no complaints from the union officials or any of its members, either written or verbally, for over twelve months past. I may say that there is very little carburetted-hydrogen gas found in the mine, but for some time past small quantities have been found and reported by the examining officers of the company. In view of that I have repeatedly requested that the roads in the mine where coaldust has accumulated should be adequately watered, and all shots fired in the mine to be fired by the fireman and deputy, as required by Special Rule 25 (d). The manager has not complied as fully as I would like. The foot-tracks of the travellingroads only have been watered, and while the manager has informed me in writing that shots are being fired by officials I am not quite sure that this is so." He considered that that was all that was necessary to reduce the danger of the mine to a minimum —watering of the dust and the appointment of shot-firers. In that letter Mr. Bennie goes on to say,— " I cannot recommend that safety-lamps only be used in these mines for two reasons —(1.) Very little gas is found in the miners' working-places; it has practically always been found in falls of the roof of the old workings, and two officials are specially appointed to examine the old workings. During the
C—l 4.
168
[mr. macassey.
week daily inspections are made, and a full round of the work is made during the week. (2.) The work-ing-places are 10 ft. to 18 ft. high. The light from a safety-lamp is very poor, and if the mine is to be worked as at present, by present methods, there will be a great increase in the number of accidents to miners, and serious accidents, if not fatalities, as the result of defective lighting, the safety-lamps will be damaged and the end in view defeated. To prosecute for a breach of Special Rule ]4 in Kelly's case will, at least, have the effect of producing stricter supervision ; therefore, I now ask permission to summons Mr. Fletcher under Special Rule 14 of the Coal-mines Act, 1908, and also permission to employ a solicitor." That was the request which Mr. Bennie made —that he should be permitted to issue a summons even though it failed. He also wrote to Mr. Fletcher on the 25th August, saying,— " I wish to impress upon you that should any further indications of firedamp take place in your mine, to the personal injury of any workman or otherwise, of whatsoever dimensions, it may be necessary to insist upon the use of safety-lamps only in your mine. I trust you will give this matter your earnest consideration." Now, up to that point, or up to the point of the disaster, Mr. Bennie has stated that he was not aware of the highly inflammable nature of this coaldust. Even Professor Dixon was surprised that this lignite coal was so highly inflammable. One cannot judge the actions of the officers of the Department, nor Mr. Bennie in particular, by recent events ; you must judge him from, the conditions which existed prior to the accident. He is a man of ripe experience, careful and attentive to his duties, and he saw no special reason sufficient to justify the use of safety-lamps at that particular time. In addition to that, as Mr. Tunks has put it, Mr. Bennie had in the mine a brother-in-law who was killed, Mi , . Holden. Mr. Bennie could have obtained from Mr. Holden confidential information, but neither of them had any fears as to the dangers that existed in the mine. Then, those letters from Mr. Bennie to the Under-Secretary were submitted by Mr. Blow to Mr. Reed for his information, and Mr. Reed recommended that the opinion of a solicitor should be obtained, and if he (the solicitor) thought there .was a reasonable chance of obtaining a conviction a prosecution should follow. The Minister authorized that to be done, and Mr. Bennie took the opinion of Mr. Miller, who is a reputable mining lawyer. Mr. Bennie prepared a statement of facts, but he also had a personal interview with Mr. Miller, and pointed out everything that had occurred not only in connection with Ralph's Mine, but also at the Extended Mine, and on those facts he advised the Inspector that there was no reasonable ground for the manager to apprehend danger. He puts it very clearly : — " In the case now under consideration an underviewer made examinations, and for several days preceding the accident everything was reported safe and ventilation good. In view of the fact of which you inform vs —that with good ventilation a mine could be clear and work could quite safely be undertaken a day after gas was reported—we cannot conceive a reasonable man who relied on the underviewer's reports having any fear whatever from danger of firedamp. So that the manager, we think, could not be held to be guilty of an offence unless he could be said to have neglected Special Rule 14, or, in other words, unless the steps taken by him would be less than the steps taken by a reasonable man to ascertain the presence of firedamp. As stated above, ■ the Act and regulations provide what is to be done as to examining the mine, and although a bare compliance with the letter of the statute is not necessarily sufficient, yet such a compliance (which is undoubtedly shown in this case) is prima facie evidence of reasonable care being taken. And the evidence required to rebut such a prima facie case would have to show very definitely that the mine-manager did in some way neglect his duty ; but there is nothing whatever in the facts submitted by you to us which suggests that the manager was in any way neglectful. And on these facts we do not think that a Magistrate could or would find the manager guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14." As I said before, the instructions given to Mr. Bennie were to obtain a solicitor's opinion, and if l there was a fair chance of a conviction being secured he was authorized to institute the necessary proceedings. The solicitor's opinion was unfavourable, and Mr. Bennie notified the Under-Secretary to this effect, and enclosed a copy of the opinion, adding that no good purpose could be served by a prosecution. I put it to the Commission that there is not a tittle of evidence to show that Inspector Bennie has in any way neglected his duty. He only acted on instructions from the Under-Secretary, and every instruction given him waa faithfully and carefully carried out. Ido not think that I need take any further time so far as Mr. Bennie is concerned. He is the only officer whose official inspection you are authorized to consider. In regard to this, section Bof the order of reference says you are "to ascertain if the provisions of the existing law are sufficient to give the Inspector of Mines full authority to order the use of safety-lamps and other appliances if in his opinion such appliances are necessary." It is true that the Inspector of Mines has no power to issue what may be termed an administrative order. Ido not contend that he has the power to order that safety-lamps must be used, or that he can insist on it under an administrative order, but what Ido submit is this: that there is power indirectly under section 58 to secure the safety of the lives of the miners in the mine. If there is an extraordinary danger in the mine it is quite open for him to call the men out. lam not now referring to this particular mine, but speaking generally. I put it to you that under that section and on the evidence of Mr. Bennie, Mr. Fletcher, and Mr. Bishop, if there is real danger and if the Inspector ordered the men to be called out until the danger is removed, the men would be called out. Under the special rule there is also power to effectively secure the safety of the lives of the miners in the mine. As I have said, the Department obtained an opinion 1 to the effect that they could not succeed under the special rule ; and it appears from the file that the Minister was not aware that the proceedings had been dropped until the disaster had occurred. Mr. Bennie then directed that safety-lamps should be put in. I submit with confidence that there is not a tittle of evidence to show any negligence or breach of duty on the part of Mr. Bennie or any official of the Mines Department.
a—l 4.
MR. NEWTON.]
169
No. 4.—Mr. Newton. Mr. Newton : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, —I do not propose to address the Commission generally, but there are just two points to which I would like to refer. These are : Firstly, the knowledge of the union as to the danger of the mine, and, secondly, as to the check inspection. With regard to the knowledge of the union, I think there is nothing at all in the evidence to show that the union or any of its officials had any knowledge of this being a dangerous mine, or any reason that a disaster was likely to occur ? If that knowledge was in the possession of the Mines Department, and if the Mines Department was apprehensive of a disaster in the mine, no intimation was ever given to the union or its officials, or to any of its members, who were perhaps most interested in the matter. I submit, therefore, that the union cannot be held in the slightest degree to be guilty of any dereliction of duty, because it had no knowledge, and its officials had no knowledge, that the mine was considered dangerous. On the question of the check inspection, this is, of course, purely voluntary. The Act says that the union may appoint check inspectors, and these check inspectors may make inspections at certain periods, and that inspection is to be at the instance of the union. The union would welcome any recommendations which might be made by the Commission to ensure a more effective inspection by the check inspectors, but I would point out this : that the check inspectors have not been in the habit of making very frequent inspections of this mine. Mr. Fulton told us that during the year he had been in office he had made only two inspections of the mine, and I believe that only two inspections have been made this year. One reason for that is that it would probably be a considerable burden and expense upon the union to make more frequent inspections of this mine where there is such a great area of old workings. If the check inspection is to be efficient those old workings should be periodically examined by the check inspectors, and, as I say, to make frequent inspections would be a considerable burden upon the funds of the union. These are the only matters to which I wish to direct the Commissioners' attention. No. 3. —Mr. Wilpord. Mr. Wilford : Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, —First of all, may I tender my thanks to you for your patience with me during the proceedings of this Commission, and to my learned friend Mr. Tunks for his kindly reference to myself. The assistance given to me by the members of the Commission has made my task quite a light one. Now, sir, there is one important point which strikes me in the speeches of the former gentlemen who have already addressed you as apologists for the company, and that is that they have united in one common object, and that is to whitewash everybody and everything. Now, if there were no speech to be delivered in reply to the statements that they have made it would not be necessaiy for you, gentlemen, to leave your seats to arrive at a conclusion; but if they have conveyed to you the case as it has appeared from the evidence, everybody should be absolved—no one is to blame, and to suggest blame is a heresy ; but I propose not only to suggest blame, but to prove it. The first point which I make, which cannot be controverted, is this : A naked light originated the disaster. That is clear. The next point I make is: The disaster could have been prevented. If the disaster could have been prevented, then who is to be blamed if it was not prevented. I hope to show. My learned friend Mr. Tunks and my learned friend Mr. Napier have asked over and over again, " Where is there any negligence and recklessness shown on the part of this company ? " The case bristles with instances which are patent and clearly proved. I will enunciate them. There is an old saying amongst lawyers, " No case, abuse the other side," and if that adage has ever been exemplified it has been in the delivery of the speeches we have heard to-night. No evidence of negligence or recklessness in connection with the working of the mine was alluded to, but they simply indulged in bitter invective against Mr. Reed, the Inspecting Engineer of the Mines Department--the man who has dared to indict these people for what he believes to be their culpable negligence. The company knew that gas explosions or ignitions had taken place—they knew they had taken place through the use of naked lights —and yet they persisted in the use of these naked lights. They even deputationized the Government, with others, to oppose a Bill being passed into law which provided for the use of safetylamps where gas ignitions or explosions had taken place within the twelve months previous. It is damning evidence that on the 16th February, 1912, Conn was burnt by a gas-explosion ; on the 23rd March, Willcox was burnt with a gas-explosion ; and within a few weeks of these two men being injured by gas-explosions we find the manager and directors of this very company travelling to Wellington to prevent the passing of a Bill which prohibits the use of naked lights in such a mine as theirs. It cannot be denied. Put the dates of these two burnings—the ]6th February and the 23rd March, 19] 2, in juxtaposition to this visit to Wellington, and you will see those men in their proper light. That Bill, if it had been placed on the statute-book, would have prevented the disaster ; and they opposed it with the full knowledge in their minds that two gas-burnings had taken place here. Is that recklessness ? The question of whether or not safety-lamps could be insisted on is beside the point. The company knew they were necessary, and chanced it —risking the valuable lives of men'without any justification whatever, except perhaps the miserable mundane score of expense. What else could it have been ? If the manager, after the gas-explosions had taken place, could not see the necessity for safety-lamps he should give place to some one who could. If after the presence of gas had been proved to him by those burnings sustained by the men through gas-iginitions, he could not see the necessity for safetylamps, he should give place to some one who could. But the law speaks loudly here —it speaks eloquently. In Special Rule 14, under the Coal-mines Act, 1908, we find these words : " The underviewer, undei the directions of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used, and naked lights excluded
22—C. 14.
C—l 4.
170
[MR. WILFORD.
wheresoever and whensoever danger from, firedamp is apprehended." Can anything be clearer ? Is any sort of fustian which obscures the issue to blind our judgment in regard to that fact ? Mr. Fletcher not only apprehended danger from firedamp, but he knew that explosions of it had occurred. Therefore, not only is Rule 14 to be invoked, but it should have been invoked. There is no excuse for it not having been invoked. The company is guilty of wilful recklessness in allowing naked lights to be used for one day after they apprehended danger :it was enough that one man had been burned. My learned friend says, " Where is the negligence." That is point No. 1. What is the next ? The company knew and have admitted that high bords could not be examined without ladders. They know that; a child knows it; every miner knows it, let alone a certificated mine-manager. Did they provide a single ladder ? Not a ladder was found in the mine after the disaster, save a broken one. Did you hear any of my learned friends refer to ladders ? And yet we are asked whether this company has been guilty of negligence. That was wilful negligence, and the examination for gas a farce. What is the use of pretending to this Commission or this country that this mine was efficiently examined for gas before the men went to work when they have not had a ladder for examining the roof where the gas accumulated ? Because it is proved that gas is not present on the floor is not proof that gas is not locked up in the roof. That is another sign of wilful neglect. It is also provided in Rule 16, so that those who read can understand, that " Doors only used occasionally by the inierviewer or his deputy must be kept securely locked, and only opened by properly authorized persons." Mr. Fletcher frankly admitted that the door that opened into this fatal death-trap had no lock. The law says it should have had a lock. He admits that it had no lock. And if my learned friend relies upon the fact that Martin entered by that door, then he went through a door that had no lock ; the company is responsible for the absence of a lock on that door, and is therefore directly responsible for what occurred. But Ido not believe that Martin went that way. Ido not believe the non-lock on that door caused his death. There was neglect on the part of the company in refusing to place a lock on that door-; if there had been a lock on it, it ought not to have been unlocked unless by some person in authority. Now, what do we find ? We find that the ends of the bords in the old workings were not fenced. Rule 1.8 is quite clear on that point: it says that such places must be properly fenced across the whole width, so as to prevent persons from inadvertently entering the same. And this is what we find next : We find that the company knew that unless the old workings were effectually ventilated gas would collect and become a source of menace and danger to the men. Notwithstanding this knowledge, the company, without any regard to the danger of life, omitted to property ventilate such old workings ; and Inspector Bennie, forsooth, claims that he initiated the idea of getting these old workings inspected regularly for gas. Are we not to believe, then, that if Inspector Bennie had not insisted upon these old workings being inspected that the company would have allowed them to become gas-collectors and death-traps all that time ; because that is the meaning of it. The company did not have those old workings properly inspected until the Inspector insisted on it because of the accumulations of gas. There was danger to the lives of the men, and another case of the recklessness of the management is absolutely made out. Every time Inspector Bennie inspected these old workings he swears he found gas there. There were now the deaths of Martin and all those other men, which were caused by the fact that No. 6 bord was not properly inspected before Martin went into it. He walked in confident that lie was all right, believing it to have been inspected, and as he entered the bord where the gas was not sufficient to cause an explosion he marched with confidence up there, and when he got to the height of the bord where the gaseous mixture was such as to ignite from his naked light this ghastly catastrophe eventuated. It is clear, I say, that if that place had been properly inspected that morning the lives of those fortythree men would have been saved. There is no question about it. There is no use burking the fact that the inspection of No. 6 bord that morning of the 12th September would have prevented the explosion. What next do we find ? That flame-producing explosives were used in the mine, the use of such explosives increasing the chance of a catastrophe. Ido not want to make a strong point as regard the explosives used. I believe the company did not know which were permitted explosives and which were not. I want to say that where the evidence does not prove these matters one should willingly admit it. The next point is that the company allowed men to act as inspectors and examiners who were inexperienced in gas-testing—they had passed no examination, in it, and they tested generally for heat and not for gas. The only men—Young and Darby—who apparently understood the gas-test had reported accumulations of gas in the mine ; and my friend has produced witness after witness who have stated that there were no gas accumulations there. But look at their qualifications. Young, who learned gas-testing and passed the examination, swears that there were great accumulations of gas in the mine. So that this-company has recklessly not only not guarded the men against explosions, but has allowed inexperienced men in regard to testing for gas to decide whether the miners should go into these places or not. Then, what next do we find ? That the men who examined the old workings only tested up to 7 ft. What a farce with such bords as these, which run up to 20 ft. in height. Is not the charge, then, of caring little about the safety of the men fully proved ? Surely. Then, again, the place where Martin was killed was not examined by Examining Deputy Whorskey on the morning of the catastrophe. This is required by law. Whorskey never examined these places that morning. It is not suggested so. If he did, why is it not referred to in his report-book ? I asked Mr. Fletcher if he could prove it, and he said " No." Then, Whorskey never reported as required by Special Rule 25. It is provided in that rule that he (the deputy) " shall report to the manager any violation by workmen of the rule as to entering the mine before inspection." There is not a word of it. Is that not negligence ? Then, again, the management have neglected, as required by Special Rule 3, to see that an adequate amount of ventilation is constantly produced in the mine to dilute and render harmless noxious gases " to such an extent that the working-places of the shafts, levels, stables, and workings of the mine, and the travelling-roads to and from such
171
C—l 4.
MR. WILFORD.]
working-places shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, be in a fit state for working and passing therein." Can that have been carried out ? Is there no onus upon the company for that ? Is the company going to be whitewashed by simply denouncing Mr. Reed ? Leave him out of the question. They have never missed an opportunity of blackening this man, who has risked his position and dared to beard them. Then, charge No. 4 against the company is this : They failed to ventilate bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 by brattice and stoppings from the main ventilating air-current, where Martin met his death and started the explosion which has caused this dreadful fatality which every one of us deplores and regrets. Has the company come out of this inquiry with clean hands ? Have they come out of it as careful men exercising that care and consideration for the lives of their employees which you would expect from men interested in great undertakings ? I say, No. At the Coroner's inquest, although evidence was given as to where Martin's body was found, was there one word said as to the rails being near Martin's body ? Was there one tittle of evidence given at the Coroner's inquest that the rails in bord No. 5, in regard to which this Commission is inquiring, were near Martin's body ? Brownlie said that Martin had gone to look for rails, but no one gave any evidence at the inquest that the rails were close to where Martin's body was found. Look at the difference it makes. To-day we have no question as to what Martin was there for, or whether the explosion was caused by him, but only whether Mr. Reed has spoken words in a strong way. Then, what next do we find ? That during the speech of my learned friend Mr. Napier he comments on Mr. Reed's statements as those of a charlatan and a humbug, adding that he was reckless in his language when giving his evidence. My friend Mr. Tunks, in prefacing his remarks, said that Mr. Reed had apologized to him, and that he had acted an honourable part towards him. Strong men speak strongly, I say. Men of sincere convictions speak perhaps more strongly than men whose opinions are of the jellyfish mould. I think, on many occasions, he did speak strongly; but how many men will stand a heckling in the witness-box during two long days by able lawyers, and not at times hit back. We of the profession are in the position when cross-examining a witness of having legal license. The witness has not that license. There is given to counsel an advantage which I fear we sometimes overstep, but when a witness replies in the heat of the battle under severe cross-examination in words which may be hard and strong, remember the circumstances. Whatever may be said about Mr. Reed, can any one question his testimonials ? Can any one question his sincerity ? He predicted this disaster six times, and Mr. Tunks says, " Why did he not get a gun ? " What was he to do ? He felt something was going to happen. He made representations to the men to whom he had to report. He wrote to Mr. Blow, the Under-Secretary of his Department, who did him the justice, in writing to the Minister on the day of the disaster, of saying, " This explosion shows that the fears of the Inspecting Engineer were well grounded." I hope Mr. Reed will live beyond the gibes and sneers of my learned friend to reach that position of greatness in connection with the mining industry of this country to which his abilities undoubtedly entitle him. Now, gentlemen, my learned friend Mr. Tunks has remarked upon my cross-examination of Professor Dixon. I want to say that I believed as little in Professor Dixon as Mr. Tunks believes in Mr. Reed. We are all entitled to our opinions. I was ready to kneel to the Professor as a man skilled in chemistry, as a man who in that particular line was facile princeps, but I think he suffered from what the Americans call " exaggerated ego." You must remember this : that he allowed his name to be used in the public prints —a man of responsibility and high position in England as a chemist—l say he allowed his name to be used in the papers by the reporters when he came to Huntly expressing opinions upon this disaster, and he took those opinions back. He wrote a report to the Minister in regard to the gas-explosion before he had analysed his samples, and he took that back ; and I make bold to say that if he had delayed another month in this country we would have had still another opinion from the Professor. He had plenty of ability ; but, in regard to the Professor, I thought he was speaking of matters beyond his cognisance. When he visited this mine while the Commission was sitting, he was the only man of the party whose light went out in the mine. It makes you wonder whether he was such a tester for gas as we were led to believe. Now, in regard to Mr. Miller's opinion, Ido not know Mr. Miller—l have never met him—but I believe he gave the only opinion he could have given on the case as it was submitted to him. I believe that many lawyers are blamed for opinions which are found afterwards to be wrong, because those opinions are founded upon insufficient or erroneous statements of facts submitted by their clients. If the whole case were particularized, if every detail that has come before this Commission had been placed before Mr. Miller, do my learned friends suggest that he would now say that a prosecution would not lie against Mr. Fletcher and against the company under Special Rule 14 ? Is there any man in this country to-day, after hearing the evidence of this Commission, would say that under this section, which provides that " an underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended " —is there any man who would say that such an action would not lie ? Could anybody argue to-day that if Mr. Fletcher had been prosecuted under Special Rule 14 before the disaster, it could have been argued that he did not apprehend any danger from firedamp when he knew that men had been burned by firedamp in the mine ? lam sure that the prosecution would have been a much eaiser job than the defence. Gentlemen, I am sorry that I cannot in the short time at my disposal in any possible way deal with this case as fully as the evidence warrants. I cannot do more than touch lightly upon the fringe of the subject, but I feel convinced and satisfied, as a man with some experience in public trials, that justice will prevail —that though you cannot do justice to those who are gone, justice will be done to those who are left behind. And when you come to sum up this evidence you will have only one answer to give to New Zealand (which is waiting for that answer), and that will be that the recklessness and carelessness of this company can only be met with such condemnation as is in your power to inflict.
a—l 4
172
EVIDENCE TAKEN AT INQUEST. [Note. —All tho Coroner's inquest witnesses who were subsequently examined by Commission (with the exception of John McGill) were requested, on being sworn, to confirm their evidence given at the inquest proceeding . Their inquest depositions is consequently embodied in the Commission evidence. The following depositions (apart from the evidence of John MoGill) were made by witnesses at the inquest other than those who appeared before the Commission.] Frederick Berry, sworn, saith : I am a stableman at Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the morning of the accident at 5.30 a.m. I proceeded to the stables with Thomas Cummock, a pumpman. I attended to my duties at the stable, and came up at ten minutes to seven. I did not see anything of the deputies down the mine. The engine-driver let us down ; his name is Dudley Starr. I did not notice anything unusual down the mine that morning. The mine, as far as I could see, was in its usual condition, and the air good. I had to go down early to get the horses ready for work. I did not see anybody at the top of the shaft when I came up. Cummock went into No. 1 pump about 100 yards from the bottom of the shaft. Frederick Berry, recalled : I did not go down previous to the deputies —that is, the examining deputies. I presume I was after them. Ido not know when they went down. I had a naked light —an acetylene-lamp. Some miners use acetylene-lamps and some oil-lamps. I did not get " all right " from the examining deputies when I went down. As a rule, I used to go down with these men every morning. As far as I went, they used to go with a naked light. I knew it was safe as far as I went. Dudley Starr, sworn, saith : lam engine-driver at Ralph's Mine. I went on at midnight, and was on duty until 8 a.m. on the morning of the 12th September. The fan and pumping-engines are kept going all night. A pumper, Mr. Cummock, went down at 4 a.m. The deputies—Whorskey, Skellern, and Peckham —went down at 5 a.m. Fred Berry went down soon after the deputies ;he usually goes down with the deputies in the morning. This was not a regular working-day. Just before seven o'clock O'Brien went down :he is the onsetter. The main body following shortly after. There is no one to supervise and say who is to go down or not. By Mr. Tunks : The fan is not allowed to slacken down at night. By Mr. Bennie : I have never known of the fan being stopped. It has been stopped on Sunday for repairs. lam quite positive it did not stop on the night before the accident. William Brocklebank, sworn, saith : I am a clipper-on at Ralph's Mine. On the 12th instant I went down the mine with five others in the cage at 7 a.m. There would be forty or fifty others went down about the same time. I saw Darby, the deputy, in the cabin along the shaft. He gave me instructions to go down Dooley's dip. In going in that direction I passed No. 6 cabin. I saw John Whorskey there ;he is fireman. He was smashing carbide for his lamp. I passed the time of day with him, and went on. I overtook Arthur Ruston. I did not see any one else. When I got about 200 yards past No. 7 flat sheet I felt a gust of wind coming behind me. It carried me on and knocked me down. My light was blown out. It was an acetylene light. Arthur Ruston was with me :we both went down. We spoke to each other for two minutes after that. I got up again and fell down again, when I lost consciousness. I could not breathe freely. It was the after-effects of the explosion that caused me to lose consciousness. It would be the gas. I was not burnt at all. I did not see any flame. It must have been six or seven hours before I remembered anything more. 1 recovered consciousness and crawled out to the rescue party. It was about an hour before I got to the rescue party when I recovered consciousness. I came out at the Taupiri West shaft. I had been working in the mine about nine months this time. I did not notice any smell in the mine. I had not gone very far before I reached the rescue party. I did not notice anything different about the mine that morning from any other morning. I have never heard any complaints about the mine being a bad mine to work in or insufficient air. The way from No. 6 cabin to where I went used to be very bad with dust. I went along a road only used by clippers-on —the haulage road. By Inspector Bennie : This is the first time I have ever been out Taupiri West shaft. By Coroner : I was about the last man to go down the mine. The first man would have gone down about five minutes before me. Alexander McGill, sworn, saith :lam a clipper, employed in Ralph's Mine. I was in company with the last witness, Brownlie. I accompanied him to the stables, and from there until we came out. We went down the little dip, and through two trap-doors. We were there struck by a gust of wind. There were small lumps in the coaldust blown by the wind. Morton was in front. After the explosion we went to the shaft. Morton we found lying in water, bleeding at nose, and his knee was hurt. I have been employed in the mine about nineteen months. I have not known gas to exist in the mine before. I work on the main rope-road. By Mr. Bennie : I know the road from No. 6 cabin to No. 6 special. There was a little dust on that road, but it is watered now. It is two months since I went that way. They were watering it then. By Mr. Tunks : Ransome was watering it then. James Wilkie, sworn, saith :lam a trucker, employed in Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the morning of the 12th instant at 7 a.m. I had my ordinary acetylene-lamp with me. When I got to the bottom of the shaft I went down the haulage-road. I got to the road turning into No. 6 special. Joseph Richards was with me. A gust of wind caught us from behind. It knocked us down. It lasted a minute or two. I thought one of the air-pipes had burst just behind us. The
173
C—l 4
air had a nasty smell and full of gas. After some time we got our lamps alight, and went to Taupiri West. I have been six months in the mine, and always found it free from gas and the air good. I was working in No. 5 for three days six months ago. I have never heard any complaints from the men about the ventilation or presence of gas. There used to be coaidust on the main road when I went there, but now it is kept well watered ; in fact, it is slushy. By Mr. Bennie : I have not worked in any but No. 5 and No. 6 special. It used to be dusty before they watered it. Ido not know what method was used to water it. It has been well watered for the past two months. Joseph William Ritchie, sworn, saith :lam a trucker, employed at Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine at 7 a.m. on the morning of the accident, in company with others, including Wilkie. We were close together when the terrific gust of wind occurred. I could not say whether it came in front or behind. I was knocked down. I was not injured. Eventually I got out at Taupiri West. I have never heard any complaints amongst the men as to gas or insufficient ventilation in the mine. I have been mining for eight years, and in Ralph's Mine for six months. I have never seen any signs of gas in the mine, and the ventilation was real good. There was no dust on the travelling-road from No. 6 flat sheet. The road had been well watered. By Mr. Tunks : I have been travelling along that way since I have been in the mine. It was being watered a little at first, but for the last two months at least it has been really well watered. By Mr. Bennie :I do not know the man's name who was watering. Water-pipes are only on the travelling-road to No. 6 flat sheet. John Walter Hollis, sworn, saith :lam a detective sergeant, stationed at Auckland. On the 20th instant I interviewed Peckham and Jackson in the Hamilton Hospital. They are both ill, suffering from burns and other injuries. I took down the statements they made in reference to my inquiries from them. The statements are produced. They were unable to write. Their state of mind was clear. It was not read over to them after it was taken down. [Statement of Jackson put in and marked "L " ; Peckham's statement put in and marked " M ".] The statements were made in answer to questions put by me. I did not lead them at all. Herbert Augustus Earby, sworn, saith :lam a set rider, employed in Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the 12th September at 7 a.m. I went down with Tolan and others. We proceeded to Darby's cabin, and there received instructions from Deputy Smith. We were instructed to proceed to work at Taupiri West. We went down the main haulage-way as far as No. 6 cabin. We saw Deputy Whorskey there breaking carbide. We saw no one else about. After leaving No. 6 cabin we went along the travelling-road as far as No. 6G. We reached No. 6 winch. There was then a short sharp rumble, followed by a gust of wind, followed by fine coaidust. It came behind us. We were carrying naked lights, and had carried them right through the workings from the foot of the shaft. My lamp kept alight. I was not knocked down, as I caught hold of a prop. We went on to Taupiri West and came out there. I have been working in the mine three years last August. I have always found it a safe mine, and that has always been the impression amongst the miners. I have never heard anything to the contrary among the miners. I have not noticed dust on the haulageways, but there was dust in the travelling-ways. This has been well watered for this last two or three months. I did not go into the old workings that morning, but kept to the main travelling-road. I have never been in the old workings, nor seen any of the men go there. By Mr. Bennie : The travelling-road would be 14 ft. wide. Half of that was watered, down the middle. The sides were a little dusty. James Young, sworn, saith :lam a clipper, employed in Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the morning of the 12th September at 7 a.m. I proceeded along the main travelling-road past No. (i cabin and along No. 6 rope-road. William Mitchell was with me until we got to the rope-road, and there were two others caught us up. We had nearly reached No. 6 winch when a gust of wind caught us and knocked me down. I did not hear any noise of an explosion or a fall. The wind came behind us. There was a dusty smell with it. I have been working in coal-mines for about twelve years. I have worked in Millerton and Stockton Mines. I have only worked in Ralph's Mine for three months. This mine compares with other mines I have worked in very favourably. I have never noticed any gas in the mine. I came out at Taupiri West shaft. Albert Alexander Stewart, sworn, saith : lam a machine-man, employed in Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the morning of the 12th September at 7 a.m. I was with .Fletcher and others. Fletcher and I went down the main haulage-road until we got to the stable, and then crossed to the main travelling-road. We then went along No. 6 flat sheet. We got through No. 3 door on the travelling-road. We heard a report, and it put the lights out. After the report we felt a very strong gust of wind, with dust and fumes. We were the last two that crossed the flat sheet. This gust of wind came from behind. I thought the report came from the direction of No. 6 flat sheet. The dust came from that direction. We were not knocked down, but were blown against the side of the road. Some time after we lit our lights, and after we picked the others up we tried to return the way we came. We found the air too bad. We got within 150 yards of No. 6 flat sheet. We subsequently got out at Taupiri West. I have been in the mine fifteen months. I have been latterly working in Wilson's jig, No. 6 jig. I have always found the mine free of gas. I have been down the mine since the explosion. I think the most damage has been done from No. 5 to No. 6. The bodies of those found about No. 5 and No. 6 were all scorched. Those found in No. 7 seemed to have died from gas. No. 6 travelling-road was always kept well watered.
C—l 4.
174
By Mr. Tunks : The main travelling-road was well watered. This has been so for the last four months. This is since the check inspectors have been appointed —in May, I think. Part of the road goes through stone, but the road is always kept watered. The travelling-road was not watered to its full width, just the actual travelling part. On the sides there was a mixture of coal and dust, more coal than dust. As far as those travelling on that road were concerned the conditions were satisfactory. By Mr. Bennie : I have been in No. 5 since the explosion, past where four of the bodies were found. There is not much dust there now ; it is now like a black ash now. One of the bodies from No. 5 was very severely knocked about. There were several skips where the bodies were found. They were just as they had been left with the tallies on. They were just below a bank. Re-examined : I am vice-president of the Miners' Union. I have never had any complaints from the miners in any shape or form about the mine. Recalled, saith : About five weeks ago, on one occasion, I complained to 'one of the deputies that the air was not reaching the face where I was working, it needed more bratticing. It was remedied at once. It is not an unusual thing for this to happen in a mine as we are advancing all the time. Arthur Farrar, sworn, saith : I am a machinist, employed in Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the 12th September, about 7 a.m. When I got to the bottom we went straight along the main rope-road. Healy and Allen were with me. Allen left us at No. 5. We had got about half way along No. 6 rope-road when a strong wind came behind us, carrying small coal with it. We were all carrying naked lights. It put the lights out. It blew me against an empty skip which was on its side, and I got in that. After it was over I smelt gas. We did not strike a light for five or ten minutes. The air was getting better then/;and we lit our-lights again. Wilkie and Richards came running from No. 6 jig, and we all went and|fmally got out at Taupiri West shaft. I have been in the mine between three and four months. I have worked chiefly in No. 6 jig. I have never heard any complaints of gas in the mine. I have not been down the mine since the explosion. By Mr. Bennie: On the road to No. 6 jig there was a little dust in the centre of the travellingroad. It has been watered ever since I have been down the mine. It was the centre that was watered, not the sides. Daniel Fletcher, sworn, saith :lam a machine-man, employed in Ralph's Mine. I went down the mine on the 12th September, about 7 a.m. I went down with a number of others. We proceeded along the rope-road until we came to a crosscut, and then along the travelling-road and joined the rope-road at No. 5. We saw. William Maylands at No. 5 flat sheet. We went along the rope-road until we came to No. 6 flat sheet. We saw Deputy Whorskey there. We turned to the left there, and went along the travelling-road in the direction of No. 6 jig. We were about the third door when I heard a deep report of an explosion. It came from behind us. It came from behind me and to the left. Almost immediately there was a rush of foul air, with very small coal. It did not knock me down, but pushed me along a bit. It blew our lights out. A few minutes after we lit up again. The first few matches would not burn. We eventually got out at Taupiri West shaft. I noticed nothing unusual in the mine that morning. The air was as fresh as it usually was. I did not notice any unusual heat or signs of smoke. I have been employed in the mine for six or seven months. I have heard complaints that sometimes there has not been sufficient air conducted near enough to the face. Complaints were made to the deputy. I have never heard of any complaints that were not remedied. I have heard that Stewart complained of insufficient air ;he told me so himself. By Mr. Napier : I have never made a complaint of insufficient air without it being remedied. I made a complaint six or seven weeks ago, and it was immediately remedied. Brattice was put up. By Mr. Bennie.: The coal-cutting machine makes a certain amount of dust. There used to be a little dust on the road to my work from No. 6 cabin, but it is watered. The dust is on the sides. It has been watered for two or three months. It is sloppy lately. By Mr. Robertson : I have never complained of gas being in the mine, nor have I heard of any complaints of gas being in the mine. I have never complained of fire being in the mine. Ido not know of any fire having been down the mine. By Mr. Tunks : I could not say whether the noise I heard was a fall, but it was more like a report than a fall. William. Mitchell, sworn, saith :lam a clipper, employed in Ralph's Mine. I arrived at the pithead about ten minutes to 7on the morning of the 12th. After the signal blew I heard the signal given to lower the men into the mine. I proceeded straight down the main rope-road to 50 or 60 yards past No. 6 cabin. I went then into No. 6 branch rope-road. I had nearly reached the end of this road when I felt a sudden gush of wind from behind. It put the lights out. I did not hear any noise as of an explosion or fall. I was slightly bruised on the leg where I was knocked against the rib. There was small coal flying in the wind. I got out at Taupiri West shaft. I have been mining for six or seven years. I have been at Denniston and here for last five or six months. At Bond's dip I used to notice it a bit warm walking in in the morning. I have never noticed any signs of gas in the mine. The mine is a dustier mine than the Denniston Mine. I should call this a dry mine compared with Denniston. During the last two months the dust has been kept well watered. A path of about 6 ft. was watered in the centre of the rope-road. No dust was raised by the traffic along that road. There was dust down the sides. I have never thought it was dangerous to use naked lights in this mine. I have never heard it suggested that it was dangerous. I always thought it a safe mine.
175
C—l 4
Alexander Mclntosh, sworn, saith : lam a machine-man, employed in Kalph's Mine. I entered the mine at about three minutes past 7on the morning of the 12th September. When I reached the bottom I went along the main haulage-rope road as far as No. 6 cabin. I went from there to tha lavatory. It is about 50 yards on the cabin side of the last door. It would be about 7.23 a.m. when I left the lavatory. Just as I left the lavatory I felt a terrible gust of wind. I heard no explosion. It came in my face. I was facing Taupiri West. I was not in the main road at the time. I was knocked down and the light blown out. I went back about 20 yards towards No. 6 cabin, but the air was too bad. Others came along shortly after, and we all got out at Taupiri West. I did not notice anything unusual about the mine that morning, it seemed to be in its usual state. The first ones to go down the mine that morning were Onsetter O'Brien and Deputy Darby. When I got to the bottom Darby was at the telephone that connects with No. 6. It was his practice to ring No. 6up to see if all was right. I have worked in the mines about eight years—in Allendale, Green Island, and Huntly. I once noticed a little bleeding of gas from a hole we had bored in No. 8. It did not explode, but went off in a flame. This was about twelve months ago. I have never seen gas in the mine in any quantities. It is not a dry mine compared with Green Island. Only on the travelling-road have I noticed any dust, and this was four months ago. By Mr. Bennie : I have been in this mine nearly two years. During that time I have worked in No. 6 south and No. 8, nearly all the time in No. 6 south. I have been in nearly all the other places in the south part of the mine. I have been putting in roads there. I have noticed the main travelling-road dusty prior to about three months ago. Since then it has been slushy for 4 ft. or 5 ft. There was not a great quantity of dry coaldust lying along the sides. No. 6 jig travelling-road was also damp. It has been watered for the last three months. There was dust and rough stuff along the sides. By Mr. Tunks : I had not noticed that it was watered prior to the last three months. I had been over it. Bernard Healy, sworn, saith :I, am employed in Ralph's Mine as a machine-boy. I went down the mine on the morning of the 12th at 7 a.m. Allen and four others were in the cage with me. When we got to the bottom, Farrar, Allen, and I went along the main rope-road as far as No. 5. We left Allen at No. 5, and we went on to No. 6 machine bords, past No. 6 cabin. We went up to No. 6 rope-road. We nearly got to the end of the rope-road when we felt a gust of wind come from behind, which knocked us down and put out our lights. After the gust was over we noticed bad air and dust. We tried to return to No. 6, but had to return and got out at Taupiri West. My arm and back were injured with flying coal. I did not hear any sound prior to the gush of air. I thought the compressedair pipe had burst close to us. I have never noticed gas in the mine in any quantity. I have been working down below for over six months, and never noticed any gas. None of the men were going to mine that morning, only to clean up. John McGill, sworn, saith :lam a deputy in Ralph's Mine. I usually go on duty at 4 p.m. and come off at midnight. I remember some heating taking place in the little dip. I visited it on the 27th August. It was part of my work to go and examine it. I was instructed by the acting-manager, and went, accompanied by Mr. Jackson, now deceased. I was instructed to take the brattice from the brick stopping and let the full current of air play upon it until the following morning. I worked at that for about an hour —from 4.30 to 5.30 p.m. At that time we left everything safe. We had cooled the heating down. About 8.30 I returned, and there was nothing visible. We again opened it up and spread it, to see if there was any smouldering. I was relieved by Mr. Webb at midnight. I informed him about it. I cannot suggest any other cause than spontaneous combustion. I have been employed in mines for forty-five years. I have been in this mine for four years and a half. During that time I have visited every part of the mine. I would only go into the old workings when I was authorized, but not very often. I have known gas in the mine, but not often. I have never seen gas in the working-faces on any occasion. I have worked in eleven mines besides this one. This mine is much safer than some I have worked in. I have never had occasion to look upon it as a dangerous mine. I have never considered it should be worked with safety-lamps : they are not used in any of the Westport mines I have worked in, except for examining. A man has not the same freedom with a safety-lamp as with a naked light; a man does not get the same light. I have worked in the Brunner Mine with a safety-lamp. I could not say whether accidents were more frequent with, safetylamps than with ordinary lamps. I have been down the mine three times since the explosion. I cannot form any opinion as to where the explosion took place. I was there on rescue-work. I was all through No. 5 since the accident. I could not get to the door of No. 5 because of the presence of gas. The break-through had been blown out: I could not say which way it had been blown ; I put a brattice-cloth there. By Mr. Bennie : Of late there has not been much dust on the travelling-roads. The road has been watered since the manager received your letter drawing attention to the dust. The centre of the road was very sloppy. The right side going in would be wet as the water would fall that way. I could not speak as to the left-hand side. By Mr. Dixon : I was on shift the night previous to the explosion. Miners were on shift also. I was in charge of the miners. • I have no doubt shots were fired on that shift. The shots would be fired by the men themselves. Three shifts were working just previous to the accident. There were only four men on the night shift. By Mr. Tunks : I was instructed to go and see the gas reported by Mr. Wear in the old workings on the 23rd March, 1914. It was in No. 7 south. I had no difficulty in clearing the gas away. We cleared some of the stopping and let as much fresh air in as would go, and in two or three hours it was quite clear.
a—l 4
176
By Court: The brick stopping was sound on the evening before the accident. No gas could get through. Gas could get through the door in No. 5. It was a fairly good door. Thomas Edward Webb, sworn, saith : I am a deputy in Ralph's Mine. I remember the 27th August, when Mr. McGill told me about some heating in the little dip. He told me he visited it and when he left it it was in perfect order. I relieved him at 12 midnight. He told me to go and look at it again. I did so. When I left at 8 a.m. it was perfectly cool. I wrote a letter to the acting-manager reporting it [Exhibit P]. I have been there once since the 27th August. It was on the Monday following. There was no heating then. I have known heating in No. 7 south. It was immediately attended to I cannot fix any date. It was within the last six months. I left the mine at 6 a.m. on the morning of the explosion. The only portion I visited that night was the stone drive in No. 6. I went down as far as No. 7 pump that night. I did not notice anything unusual in the mine that night. The last time I was at the No. 7 pump would be before 4 a.m. I have had thirty years' experience in mines. I have been everything from a door-boy to under-manager. I have worked and visited many mines, but only remember one that was as safe as this one. It was Allen's Colliery, in Wigan. It was worked with naked lights. I have never considered naked lights to be dangerous in this mine. It has never struck me that safety-lamps should be used in this mine. I have noticed gas in this mine in the old workings. During the whole of the time I have been working in the mine I have never found the slightest trace of gas in the working-faces. By Mr. Dixon : I have been a deputy a month this last occasion. I have an under-manager's certificate. i Edward Patrick Kennedy, sworn, saith :I am a trucker in Ralph's Mine. I remember the 9th July last, when an accident happened to William Kelly, now deceased. 'I was working mate with him in the stone drive. We had been working about an hour and a half when Kelly walked back about 10 or 12 yards from the face to get a drink of water. A few minutes after he went I heard what sounded like a dull explosion. There was a rush of air which knocked me down on my hands and knees and put the light out. I jumped up again, and I heard Kelly calling out, "I am burnt; come here Ned." I went to him as quickly as I could in the dark. His lamp was on his cap ; it was out. His cap was on his head. In taking a drink he would be standing up to his full height. I eventually brought him out of the mine. He told me he had been taking a drink out of his billy when the explosion occurred. Kelly was about 6 ft. high. He would be within a foot of the roof when he stood. The place would be about 7 ft. high. There was no pot-hole where the explosion occurred. The roof was nearly level, with time lathes along timber supports. We had lit gas about 30 or 40 yards away from the spot before :it was in the face where we were working. The gas just lit with a puff. It would be a month before the time Kelly was burnt. The deputies told us to be cautious about gas in that drive. That was the greatest quantity of gas I have seen in the mine. I have been working the mine for over four years. Kelly reported the first occasion to Darby. I was only working for Kelly. By Mr. Tunis :We had holed through the day before Kelly had the accident. This would increase the ventilation a good deal. We did not find it cold there after we had holed through. I did not speak to Darby about the quantity of air coming through after we had holed through. I cannot explain how the pipe at the intake end was blocked up with a brattice-cloth : we noticed it was blocked when we got there that morning, about 8.30 a.m. There were two shifts working in that drive ; the other shift followed us. By Mr. Bennie : I heard afterwards that the explosion (Kelly's) put the lights out on No. 6 flat. I do not know if it raised any dust. Stuart Dixon, sworn, saith :lam a miner, employed at Ralph's Mine. lam also president of the Taupiri Coal-mines Employees' Industrial Union of Workers. I have been mining for between seven and eight years, quartz and coal. lam also check inspector with Mr. Turton for the union. I had full power to visit all workings and see that everything was in order. I produce report made by me [Exhibit E], I found that the ventilation in one place was bad owing to insufficient air coming in, and in another section of the mine the air was not being circulated. Taking the whole of the mine, there was plenty of air. I reported the matter, and the following day it received attention. Shortly afterwards Mr. Fletcher asked, me to go through the old workings to satisfy ourselves. I told Mr. Fletcher we could not do so without consent of the union. I have only received a complaint as to insufficiency of air—that the air was not sufficient to carry away the dust. Mr. Turton and I visited this portion of the mine complained of. We took a reading, and there was no current of air. We complained to the manager. The following day the manager told us he had discovered the defect— the brattice had been pulled down. The man who complained told me the same night he had plenty of air. I have been down the mine since the explosion. I have always considered the mine perfectly safe to work with naked lights. It would be my duty, if I discovered anything dangerous, to complain to the manager. By Mr. Bennie : I did not notice dust in dangerous quantities on the travelling-roads where we walked. I noticed dust alongside the ribs. I have noticed dust, but not on the travelling-roads. I did not know the dust was dangerous except as to health until I read Professor Dixon's report in the Star just previous to the explosion. By Mr. Tunks : I know that check inspectors had referred to dust in their report three months previous to my appointment as check inspector. I think they were made in reference to discomfort in travelling. Mr. Turton said to me when making our inspection, " The complaint in our last report has made a terrible difference : they are watering the roads." By jury :No special qualification is needed to be appointed check inspector. I have no qualifications except my experience and study. I have attended the School of Mines.
177
a—l 4
Thomas Graham Hughes, sworn, saith :lam a miner, employed in Ralph's Mine. On the morning of the .1 2th September I went down the mine with Mr. Wear. I accompanied him to No. 3 pump, down the little dip. We were both using safety-lamps. We had just turned off to the left, and went to a little stopping to change our clothes. While there three men passed, and said, " Good morning." They were Mortrum, Brownlie, and McGill. They had a horse with them. They had just passed when ] heard a sound like the opening of a door. Shortly after this, a second or two, I heard a noise like rushing air. Mr. Wear had then left me. I got back into the stopping, and the rush of air went past in front of me and did not touch me. I did not see any signs of any flame. Mr. Wear sang out to me, and I waited, a minute or two, and I rejoined Mr.Wear, and we made our way to the shaft. The rush of air sounded to me like an explosion : the force came from the direction of the little dip. I had been working with Mr. Wear for a fortnight previous to this, inspecting the old workings. During that occasion of a fortnight I did not see any signs of gas in the old workings. I saw signs of heating on one occasion on the 26th August in the little dip : it was at No. 4 bord ; it was smouldering timber ; it was smouldering where it touched the bench. It is mentioned in the report. By Mr. Bennie : I did not observe much dust in the old workings. John Turton, sworn, saith :lam a miner, employed in Ralph's mine. lam also check inspector for the union, together with last witness. I have heard the account of our inspection of the mine in August last. I agree that Mr. Dixon's evidence is correct —that is, so far as he has gone. In May last I was acting as check inspector with George Allen. We inspected the mine on the 23rd May and made a report. The dust complained of in our report was attended to by the manager. It is better than ever it was. I thought the dust was dangerous and would cause an explosion. I have never noticed anything in the mine that should have been brought under the notice of the management to make the mine more safe. I was working in No. 6 special the day before the explosion. I left at 4 p.m. By Mr. Bennie : You accompanied us on our inspection on the 23rd May last. It took two days, the 23rd May and the 24th May. There has not been shot-fixers appointed since that inspection to my knowledge. The shots have been fired by the miners. I have fired my own shots since that date. By Mr. Tunks : I was satisfied with what was done in the way of watering to lessen the danger. By Mr. Bennie : I have not heard that any shot-firers have been appointed. James Lament, sworn, saith: lam director of the School of Mines at Huntly. On the 12th September I heard of the explosion and went to Ralph's shaft. I noticed one of the cages stuck in the poppet-head. Shortly afterwards some of the injured came to the surface. I, with others, descended the mine with the return cage. We went to the top of the little dip. We found the atmosphere foul beyond that, and we had to return. We returned to the foot of the shaft. I put a brattice-cloth at the head of the little dip, No. 1 pump, as the air was leaking into the return. This was to improve the ventilation. On the opposite side of the road to No. 1 pump we found some pieces of timber burning. We put them out. This was on the main haulage-way. It must have been started by the explosion. We then returned to the surface. Owing to the ventilation being bad at Ralph's shaft we went to Taupiri West shaft. I was present when a great number of the bodies were recovered. The first two found on the 12th September were Nos. 16 and 17. The next were Nos. 3, 4, and 6. This was same day. Nos. 1, 7, 12, and 5 were got from near No. 6 cabin. On the Monday morning, the 14th, I found the body of Bowler in No. 7 section —he is No. 21. Later on I found the body of Mayland, No. 22. After 4 p.m. I found the bodies of Nos. 28, 29, 30, and 31 in No. 5 section. That is all the-bodies I found. I was working for twelve months in the mine about two and a half years ago. I have not been all over the mine since the explosion. I always considered it a safe mine. I have not seen gas in quantities in this mine. I have never seen gas at all in the mine. I was on the survey staff, and often went into the old workings, but never found gas there. I have had ten years' experience with safety-lamps. In my experience 3 per cent, of gas is not dangerous, although some authorities say 1 per cent., combined with coaldust, is not dangerous. Without the presence of coaldust, 1 per cent, would not be dangerous. T have seen nothing in the mine which would, in my opinion, make it necessary to use safety-lamps. By Mr. Napier : I consider Ralphs-Mine to be the safest mine I have been in. By Mr. Tunks : I am a certificated colliery-manager, an Imperial certificate. By Coroner: lam certificated by examination. The most dangerous accumulation of dust is that adhering to the vertical sides of the roads, and the tops, and timbers. This is because of its fineness. I- do not require an examination in New Zealand in addition to the English certificate. Ido not know if this mine has had the dust on the roofs and sides sprayed with water. Wherever there is fireclay strata watering is condemned —that is, where the fireclay is exposed. It is exposed in Ralph's Mine in the haulage-way and on the stone drive. This coal contains more moisture than the ordinary bituminous coal. It is a lignite coal. This is considered a sufficient reason for dispensing with watering the sides. The sides could be dusted with inert dust: it would cost about Is. Bd. per ton to do it. In cold weather, in lignite-mines as at Huntly, when the air is cold on the surface the capacity for air to contain moisture, or to hold moisture in a state of suspension, is greater than when the temperature is higher. Cold air ascending the mine its temperature is increased, and moisture is absorbed from the road-ways through which it passes. In weather when the temperature is higher at the surface than in the mine the opposite happens, and the coal and coaldust absorbs the moisture. Considering the composition of the coal in this mine I should consider watering the roads would be sufficient to prevent an explosion. Prior to this explosion I considered the steps taken to water the dust were sufficient. I would not have taken any more precautions myself.
23—-C. 14.
a—l 4
178
By Mr. Bennie : I have not seen dust in any quantity anywhere in this mine. There is very little timber used in this mine in comparison with other mines. There were no recesses in the mine where dust could accumulate in great quantities. I did not observe dust on the walls of the roads in what I. would call dangerous quantities. I would consider there was sufficient inert dust in the stone drive to render the ooaldust there harmless. In other portions of the mine the moisture of the coaldust would make it harmless. About one-third of the main haulage-way ran through stone. This is to No. 5. From No. sto Dooley's two-thirds of the haulage-road would be in a stone drive. It is the practice in the mine in the working-bords to work the coal down to the fireclay floor. If the floor such as this were watered a creep would come on, caused by the pressure from above. I think since the explosion that parts of the walls and roads required inert dust to be scattered upon them. I did not think so befori the explosion. By Coroner : If there was no dust on the sides and the dust on the floors was watered, the initial explosion might have created sufficient dust to carry on the explosion by knocking pieces of coal about. In my opinion, the initial explosion would be a small one. If I had been manager, and saw that there was dust on the sides and roof, and the dust was dangerous, I would have had the walls and roof watered or scattered with inert dust. A manager ought to be able to judge if the dust was of a dangerous nature. By Mr. Tunks : I did not think it was a dusty mine when I worked in it—that is, two years ago. In my opinion, the condition of the mine could not be materially different from what it was two years ago. By Coroner : The old workings were not watered, and 1 would not consider it necessary to water them now. My reason for that is that persons are not likely to be there with a naked light.
Taupiri Coal Mines Limited. Plan & Sections of Nos. 4, 5 & 6 Board "Little Dip" District adjoining "No.5" District Ralph's Mine.
C-14
C.-M.
C-14
Section of Stone Drive over Main Haulage Road.
C—l 4
179
EXHIBITS. COMMISSION EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT I. Bottle containing coaldust, marked " Taupiri Coal, Ralph's Mine; Mr. Reed's sample."
EXHIBIT AA. Plan of Nos. 4, 5, and 6 bords, " little dip " district, Ralph's Mine. EXHIBIT DD. Plan of Ralph's Mine (borrowed by Mr. Ostler).
EXHIBIT CO Dominion Laboratory (Department of Internal Affairs), Wellington, 23rd October, 1914. Report on Specimens Nos. E/1144, 1145 (1-3), 1146 (1-2), forwarded by Mr. F. Reed, Inspecting Engineer, Mines Department. —Samples in connection with recent explosion in Ralph's Colliery —16, single piece of coal —E/1144 ;13 to 15, coaldust from mine—E /1145 (1-3) ; 17, bratticecloth—E/1146 (1, 2). Analyses of the coal and coaldusts gave the following results : —
A microscopic examination showed that 1145 (2) contained a considerable number of charred particles. In the case of 1145 (3) it is doubtful if there are any charred particles, but in 1145 (4) there are undoubtedly some. The brattice-cloth when examined under a low power gave undoubted evidence of singeing, and the dust on it also proved to have been charred. In order to determine the inflammability of this coal I have made the following experiments : A small amount of coal, ground to pass through a fine sieve (100 holes to the linear inch), was blown through a glass tube across the flame of a Meker burner (fixed horizontally) towards a piece of cottonwool supported by a clamp. By varying the distance of the cotton-wool from the flame of the burner it was possible to measure the greatest distance at which the coaldust flame would ignite the wool. Four coals ground to the same degree of fineness were examined by this method, and, as a result of a number of determinations, I have found the distances to be as follows : — Distance at which Coaldust Flame ignited Cotton-wool. Inches. Huntly, E/1144 (brown coal) .. .. . . .. .. .. 20 Westport-Stockton (bituminous coal) .. .. .. .. ..16 Aberdare Collieries, New South Wales (bituminous coal) .. .. 13 Wales (anthracite) . . .. .. .. .. .. .. 2| These results show that the Huntly coaldust is very inflammable, and that the flame of the ignited dust travels greater distances than ordinary bituminous coals such as Westport-Stockton and Aberdare. Such properties would render the coaldust very effective in carrying on and intensifying an explosion once started.
E/1144. 1145 (2), 1145 (2), Sfo. 13, on through 30 mesh. 30 mesh. 1145 (3), j 1145 (3), No. 14, No. 14, 30 mesh. \ 30 mesh. 1145 (4), No. 15, 30 mesh. 1145 (4). 'ixed carbon .. lydro-carbons . . Vater.. ish 44-23 41-07 13-14 1-56 42-7 40-9 12-3 4-1 44-1 38-7 10-J 7-1 35-3 36-0 13-0 15-7 33-6 34-7 12-9 18-8 22-8 30-5 8-8 37-9 24-9 35-3 9-5 30-3 100-00 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100.0
C—l 4
180
The four coals referred to above gave the following results on analysis :— Fixed Carbon. Hydro-carbons. Water. Ash. Huntly .. .. .. .. 44-23 41-07 13-14 1-56 Westport-Stockton . . . . .. 58-50 39-98 1-34 0-18 Aberdare .. .. .. .. 52-54 41-59 2-46 3-40 Wales (anthracite) .. .. .. 89-07 6-51 2-27 2-15 J. S. Maclauein, D.Sc, P.C.S., Dominion Analyst. Reference : No. 13, dust from bord W.C., No. 5 district; No. 14, dust from near No. 6 cabin haul-age-roadway ; No. 15, dust from main haulage-roadway at No. 4 level; No. 16, piece of Ralph's Colliery coal ;■ No. 17, Brattice from near flat sheet No. 5 jig.
EXHIBIT EE. Dominion Laboratory (Department of Internal Affairs), Wellington, 23rd October, 1914. Report on Specimen No. K/1275 (1-3), forwarded by Inspecting Engineer, Mines Department. Particulars : Mine-air from Ralph's Colliery, Huntly (marked Nos. 18, 19, and 20). ( *-> {U -> Per Cent. Methane (firedamp) (CHJ .. .. .. 48-100 0-07.0 Nil. Carbon monoxide (CO) .. .. .. 0-015 0-007 Carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) .. .. .. 0-350 0-150 0-05 Oxygen .. .. .. .. 10-100 20-450 Not determined. Nitrogen .. .. .. .. .. 41-435 79-323 100-000 100-000 J. S. Maclaurin, D.Sc, F..C.5., Dominion Analyst. Remarks. Samples taken in the following localities : Sample 18 at old fall in bord 5, No. 5 district, taken 7 ft. from floor, 29/9/14; sample 19, at main return little dip, near upcast shaft, 2/10/14 ; sample 20, at second return, near upcast shaft, 2/10/14. In taking sample 18 at the level of my head I. felt but little inconvenience, although there was 48 per cent. CH 4 and 10 pcx cent. O present. I climbed up the fall about 6 ft. higher into a much greater proportion of CH 4 —perhaps 70 or 80 per cent.). I had to descend quickly as the effect on me was critical. I carried an electric safety-lamp. I felt no ill effect afterwards. Prank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of Mines. EXHIBIT FF. Extracts from Monthly Reports of Inspector of Mines, Thames, to Under-Secretaey, Mines Department. 4th August, 1914. " Herewith I beg to tender my report on the coal-mines visited by me during the month of July, 1914. '" Taupiri Coal Company's Mines., —Ralph's Mine (Mr. James Fletcher, mine-manager) : On the Ist July I visited the mine office and read several copies of the mine-manager's reports of both the Ralph's and Extended Mines, who had reported machinery and mines all safe. I also read the firemen and deputies' reports of the new and old workings and roads. These reports show that CH 4 gas is met with in both workings. Extended Mine, No. 4 dip, west side : Firemen and deputies reported CH 4 gas found in above section owing to brattice-cloth being torn down; renewed brattice-cloth, restored ventilation, and cleared out the gas. No. 5 section, west side : Reported gas found in bords Nos. 1, 4, and 5 in above section; gas cleared out and places made safe. Mr. Wood, the mine-manager, confirms the safety of above section .by his report to the effect that he found all safe, gas cleared, and the ventilation good. On the 2nd July, together with the underviewer (Mr. W. Gowans), I examined several sections of the old-mine workings, where it was reported CH 4 gas had been found, and found as follows : At No. 7 level, south side of the main haulage-road and in the third bord (old workings) we found CH 4 gas in the roof over a fall of coal and rock ; the gas was very strong. The place is not a public travelling district, and is fenced off; the road leading to same is past the haulage-winch, and is not a public road. A place is being driven to cut into the third bord, and a strong current of air will sweep into the place and clear the gas out. On the north side of the main haulage-road in the old workings behind the pump, off the horse haulage-road leading to Bond's dip, I found CH 4 gas in a fall over the back of the drive, which would be about 12 ft. square. The little dip, old workings, winch-level: I examined three old bords where the back of those places are falling, up to a thin seam of coal. It had
EXHIBIT FF. Extracts from Monthly Reports of Inspector of Mines, Thames, to Under-Secretary, Mines Department. 4th August, 1914. " Herewith I beg to tender my report on the coal-mines visited by me during the month of July, 1914. " Taupiri Coal Company's Mines.; —Ralph's Mine (Mr. James Fletcher, mine-manager) : On the 1st July I visited the mine office and read several copies of the mine-manager's reports of both the Ralph's and Extended Mines, who had reported machinery and mines all safe. I also read the firemen and deputies' reports of the new and old workings and roads. These reports show that CH 4 gas is met with in both workings. Extended Mine, No. 4 dip, west side : Firemen and deputies reported CH 4 gas found in above section owing to brattice-cloth being torn down; renewed brattice-cloth, restored ventilation, and cleared out the gas. No. 5 section, west side : Reported gas found in bords Nos. 1, 4, and 5 in above section; gas cleared out and places made safe. Mr. Wood, the mine-manager, confirms the safety of above section .by his report to the effect that he found all safe, gas cleared, and the ventilation good. On the 2nd July, together with, the underviewer (Mr. W. Gowans), I examined several sections of the old-mine workings, where it was reported CH 4 gas had been found, and found as follows : At No. 7 level, south side of the main haulage-road and in the third bord (old workings) we found CH 4 gas in the roof over a fall of coal and rock ; the gas was very strong. The place is not a public travelling district, and is fenced off; the road leading to same is past the haulage-winch, and is not a public road. A place is being driven to cut into the third bord, and a strong current of air will sweep into the place and clear the gas out. On the north side of the main haulage-road in the old workings behind the pump, off the horse haulage-road leading to Bond's dip, I found CH 4 gas in a fall over the back of the drive, which would be about 12 ft. square. The little dip, old workings, winch-level: I examined three old bords where the back of those places are falling, up to a thin seam of coal. It had
Plan of RALPH'S COLLIERY, Huntly, N.Z.
A Portion of the Plan of RALPH'S MINE, HUNTLY. October, 1914. Scale: 2 chains to an inch.
181
C—l 4
been reported by the firemen and deputy that CH 4 gas had been found in these places; however, no gas was observed by me when I examined them on the 2nd July. It was stated to me that the mine ventila-tion-fan is not running continuously during Sunday night and Monday morning, but this could not have caused the above gas, as the dates reporting this gas were both on Wednesdays. Crossing through the old workings we reached the damaged pillars in the No. 2 north, section, and carefully examined that area. No further damage appears to be noticeable to the pillars since my previous visit. Coaldust in the travelling-roads has not been attended to as might have been expected, and I requested by a memo, in the manager's report-book that this dust , in the No. 6 south level, Taupiri West travelling-road, and No. 6 haulage-road, together with sections of the main dip travelling-road be removed or efficiently watered." Bth September, 1914. " Her-eunder I beg to tender my monthly report on the coal-mines visited by me during the month of August: — ''21st. Taupiri Coal-mines. —Ralph's section (J. Fletcher, manager). With the manager I examined several places, and found as follows : — (a.) In the stone drive between.Nos. 6 and 7 levels, where William Kelly was burned by an ignition of gas, we found with a safety-lamp a very small trace of gas over the drive timbers. I advised the removal of debris behind the timbers, so as to allow the air to more effectually sweep into the cavity. This was done and the gas cleared out the same day. (6.) Doolie's section, No. 8 level: All the places were examined and found to be in good order, (c.) No. 7 level behind the haulage-winch : In what is described as Doolie's south side and in the old workings there is a fall of coal and rock from the roof. CH 4 gas has been found here and reported by the examining deputies, but we found no trace of gas here on our examination, (d.) No. 7 north, Bond's dip : We examined all the miners' working-places, and found them in good order, (c.) The stone drive through an upthrow fault. It is believed there is a good area of coal to be worked behind this fault. The air in the drive face was clear and good, and the drive is timbered where necessary. (/.) No. 6 level south : We examined all the working-places and found as follows : There are three coal-cutting machines in this section driven by compressed air, but the ventilation is not as good as it might be, and fine coaldust and powder-smoke are fouling the air. The air passing was for an average of twenty-nine men equal to 557 cubic feet per man per minute. The air was fresh, showing that nearly two-thirds of the air was short-circuiting. I pointed this fact out to the manager, who promised to give his attention to a better distribution. " 22nd. With the manager, I continued my examination of the following:— (a.) Taupiri West section : All the working-places and the haulage and other roads leading thereto were in good order, and ventilation was good. (6.) The specials : A section between No. 7 and 8 levels south side of main haulage-road. All the roads and working-places were found to be in good order. Ventilation was fair, but powder-smoke was in the air, due to shots having just been fired ; and the height of the drive (from 12 ft. to 16 ft.) causes a slow air-velocity. Bords are 14 ft. wide, (c.) No. 5 north section : All the working-places and roads leading thereto were examined and found to be in good order ; ventilation was also good. All the travelling-roads have and are being watered, and the dust nuisance is much abated, especially on the foot-tracks; but there is still dust along the sides. The manager's and firemen and deputies' reports were read. Rules and signals are posted at the mine."
INQUEST EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT B. Ralph's Mine. 7 a.m., 12th September, 1914: Bar., 30-7J; therm., 49. No. 7 North Section and No. 8 Lake Section. I, the undersigned, have examined between the hours of 5 a.m. and 7 a.m. all working-places, airways, brattice, and travelling-roads in the above-named sections, also No. 6 stone drive, and found all safe. Ventilation good. J. Skellern. Read 8.8. Ralph's Minh. 7 a.m., 12th September, 1914 : Bar., 307J; therm., 48. Sections No. 6 dip and Taupiri West: I, the undersigned, have between the hours of 5 and 7 a.m. examined all working-places, airways, and travelling-roads in above-mentioned sections, and found all safe. Ventilation good. H. Peokham. Read 8.8. Ralph's Mine. 5.15 a.m., 12th September, 1914. I, the undersigned, have examined the stone drive in No. 6 section, also the roadway leading thereto, and found all safe. Ventilation good. T. E. Webb. Read 8.8.
a—l 4
182
EXHIBIT C. 4 p.m., 11th September, 1914. I, the undersigned, have examined the old workings and return airways of No 7 north and No. 2, and found all safe. No signs of heating. Ventilation good. D. Weak.
EXHIBIT E. We, the undersigned, duly appointed check-inspectors of the Taupiri Coal-mine Employees' Union, present the following report to you: — Ralph's Mine. On Thursday, the 27th August, 1914, we proceeded by way of travelling-road to No. 6 section, and visited all working-places, and found them to be in good working-order, and after taking a reading of air we found as follows : Area, 51 ft., 11,823 ft. of air per minute ; and area 30 ft., 7,655 ft. per minute, making a total in intake airway for this section, 19,478 ft. of air per minute for forty-seven men, equal to 414-4 ft. of air per man. We also took a reading of air in the return airway, and found in an area of 42 ft. 18,942 ft. of air per minute. We also visited No. 6 special, and took a reading of air, which we found as follows: Area 40ft., 6,800 ft. of air per minute for twenty-eight men, equal to 242-87 ft. of air per man. We next visited Taupiri West, and after visiting working-places, which we found in good order we took a reading in intake airway for the whole of the above section, and found as follows : Area 63 ft., 11,000 ft. of air per minute for ninety-five men, equal to 115-89 ft. of air per man, which, is 34-11 ft. of man short of the required amount. As there was sufficient air found in the return airway, we attribute the fact to a leakage of air from the north side. On Friday, 28th August, 1914, we proceeded to Bond's dip, visiting all working-places, and after taking a reading, found as follows : Area 45 ft., 15,705 ft. of air per minute for thirty-two men, equal to 349 ft. of air per man. We next visited Dooley's dip, and found the places in good working-order, and on taking a reading of air, found as follows : Area 39 ft., 3,734 ft. of air per minute for twenty-one men, equal to 17789 ft. of air per man. We next took a reading of air on both intakes for the whole of the north side, and found as follows : Area 47 ft., 14,194 ft. of air ; and area 33 ft., 9,306 ft. of air, making a total of 23,500 ft. of air per minute ; and on taking a reading of air in return airway we found—area 54 ft., 19,224 ft. of air, which is 4,276 ft. of air per minute less than found in the intake. This we attribute, as before mentioned, to leakage to the south side. We next visited No. 5 section, and after visiting the working-places, took a reading of air in the intake airway, and found as follows : Area 76 ft., 3,192 ft. of air per minute for thirteen men, equal to 245-54 ft. of air per minute per man Remarks. In No. 6 section we found the air was not being circulated through the working-places, and reported the matter to the manager, who at once proceeded to rectify the fault, which was done accordingly the following day. We also visited the sanitary places and found they were kept in clean order and condition. We are, &c, S. Dixon ) „, , , J. Tuetonl Check Ins P ectors - EXHIBIT F. Huntly, 23rd May, 1914. g IE) —We, the undersigned, being duly elected check inspectors for the Taupiri Coal-mines Industrial Union of Workers, did on the 19th day of May, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., commence our inspection of Ralph's Mine, Huntly, and report as follows :— Proceeding along the travelling-road, which we found to be rather dusty in some parts, more so between road leading from the stables to top of brow above No. 3. We drew the attention of the management to it, and he promised to have it attended to. We then proceeded to No. 6 flat sheet, where we took a reading of air, and found 16,624 cubic feet of air per minute passing ; also in travelling-road, and found 9,570 cubic feet per minute, which makes a total of 26,194 cubic feet of air for both intake airways. We then examined No. 5 section, and found everything i-n good order. We also took a reading of air which showed a total of 5,100 cubic feet per minute for twenty men. We then went to No. 7 north, and found all working-places in good order, with a good current of air flowing through. We then took a reading of the return airway between No. 7 and little dip, which is return airway for No. 7, No. 5, and Dooley's dip; it showed a total of 24,310 cubic feet per minute for seventy-three men and one horse. We next went to Dooley's dip, where we found the working-places with a quantity of smoke in, but the miners had just fired some shots which we think was the cause of it. A reading of air in this section in intake airway registered 4,140 cubic feet per minute for eighteen men, which averages 230 cubic feet per man per minute.
EXHIBIT F. Huntly, 23rd May, 1914. g JB) We, the undersigned, being duly elected check inspectors for the Taupiri Coal-mines Industrial Union of Workers, did on the 19th day of May, between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., commence our inspection of Ralph's Mine, Huntly, and report as follows : — Proceeding along the travelling-road, which we found to be rather dusty in some parts, more so between road leading from the stables to top of brow above No. 3. We drew the attention of the management to it, and he promised to have it attended to. We then proceeded to No. 6 flat sheet, where we took a reading of air, and found 16,624 cubic feet of air per minute passing ; also in travelling-road, and found 9,570 cubic feet per minute, which makes a total of 26,194 cubic feet of air for both intake airways. We then examined No. 5 section, and found everything i-n good order. We also took a reading of air which showed a total of 5,100 cubic feet per minute for twenty men. We then went to No. 7 north, and found all working-places in good order, with a good current of air flowing through. We then took a reading of the return airway between No. 7 and little dip, which is return airway for No. 7, No. 5, and Dooley's dip; it showed a total of 24,310 cubic feet per minute for seventy-three men and one horse. We next went to Dooley's dip, where we found the working-places with a quantity of smoke in, but the miners had just fired some shots which we think was the cause of it. A reading of air in this section in intake airway registered 4,140 cubic feet per minute for eighteen men, which averages 230 cubic feet per man per minute.
183
a—l 4
We next took a reading of the air at end of air-pipe in the extension of Dooley's drive, and found only 340 cubic feet per minute; but in addition to the above there was compressed air blowing off, which, in our opinion, was quite adequate for the number of men—viz., three. We then proceeded to north side main return airway, near shaft bottom, and found the quantity of air as follows : 39,120 cubic f et per minute. We also took a reading of the air in south side air return near upcast shaft bottom, and found the following quantity—viz., 24,480 cubic feet of air per minute. On Wednesday, the 20th May, we proceeded to Taupiri West section, and found everything in good order. We also took a reading of air in Taupiri West drive, and found a total quantity of 15,323 cubic feet per minute for eighteen men. We then entered No. 6 special section, and there found a little smoke in some of the working-places, but the miners had been firing shots. We drew the attention of the deputy in one place only to the want of a little brattice-cloth, it being in our opinion too far from the working-place, and he promised to attend to it at once. We also took a reading of the air for this district, which was as follows : 6,750 cubic feet per minute for twenty men, averaging per man 337 cubic feet per minute. We then proceeded to No. 6 jig section, and found it in good order. We took a reading of air in intake airway, and found 9,660 cubic feet of air per minute. There was also a quantity of air going up the jig—viz., 4,590 cubic feet—which makes a total quantity for this district of 14,250 cubic feet per minute for thirty-three men and one horse. We also visited the sanitary pans, and found all in. good order. We would recommend that a little more attention of the management and workmen in general to the amount of waste-paper and crusts of bread lying around where the workmen are in the habit of taking crib, and we would advise the workmen in all sections to avoid this very disagreeable nuisance by putting the same in an empty skip, or on the top of a full skip, and sending it to the surface. We may state that in our inspection we were accompanied by Mr. Boyd Bennie, the Government Inspector of Mines, who gave us every assistance possible. We are, &c, J. Turton. The Manager, Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), Huntly. George Allan.
EXHIBIT G. Wednesday, 26th August, 1914. This afternoon, at 3 p.m., the underviewer reported that signs of fire-stink were noticeable in the old workings to right of the old main dip haulage-road. After a thorough search by him and deputies the trouble was located at the face of an old bord which is 25 or 30 yards in advance of the last holed cut-through.. Putting a body of fresh air on to the mass, and trenching carried out, the fumes were considerably reduced, together with the temperature. At midnight conditions were again practically normal, and officials and myself anticipate no further trouble. J. Fletcher, Manager. EXHIBIT G 1. Thursday morning, 6.15 a.m., 27th August, 191.4. I have this morning examined the mass in old bord—reported on previous day- and find, after another shift had been done by a deputy and two shiftmen, that the conditions are further improved. Further trenching and spreading of the fallen coal will be pushed on, with a view of preventing further trouble as regards heating. J. Fletcher, Manager. EXHIBIT H. Firedamp—CH 4 Gas and Dry Coaldust. Mines Department, Inspector of Mines Office, Thames, 11th July, 1914. Sir,—ln view of the recent finding of CH 4 gas in Ralph's Mine, and the dangerous accumulation of dry coaldust in the mine generally, but more especially in the travelling-road adjacent to the main haulage-dip and also at No. 6 level leading to the working-places at that level and to the Taupiri West section : On my visit of inspection of the mine on the 19th and 20th May ultimo, I noticed the above conditions, and on the 30th of the same month I wrote you and requested your immediate attention as regards spraying the dust with water to remove the danger, also as regards the dust from the coarcutting machines and firing of shots by miners without restriction, &c. On my visit of inspection on the 2nd instant, when my visit was especially to inspect places in the old workings of the mine, I observed that dry coaldust was still there in dangerous quantities ; in fact, little or nothing had been done to comply with my request of 30th May ultimo. On the 2nd instant I found CH 4 gas in two places adjacent to the place where W. Kelly got burned with OHj gas on the 9th instant, reported to me by you on the 9th and received by me on the 10th instant.
EXHIBIT G 1. Thursday morning, 6.15 a.m., 27th August, 1914. I have this morning examined the mass in old bord—reported on previous day- and find, after another shift had been done by a deputy and two shiftmen, that the conditions are further improved. Further trenching and spreading of the fallen coal will be pushed on, with a view of preventing further trouble as regards heating. J. Fletcher, Manager.
EXHIBIT H. Firedamp—CH 4 Gas and Dry Coaldust. Mines Department, Inspector of Mines Office, Thames, 11th July, 1914. Sir, —In view of the recent finding of CH 4 gas in Ralph's Mine, and the dangerous accumulation of dry coaldust in the mine generally, but more especially in the travelling-road adjacent to the main haulage-dip and also at No. 6 level leading to the working-places at that level and to the Taupiri West section : On my visit of inspection of the mine on the 19th and 20th May ultimo, I noticed the above conditions, and on the 30th of the same month I wrote you and requested your immediate attention as regards spraying the dust with water to remove the danger, also as regards the dust from the coalcutting machines and firing of shots by miners without restriction, &c. ( On my visit of inspection on the 2nd instant, when my visit was especially to inspect places in the old workings of the mine, I observed that dry coaldust was still there in dangerous quantities ; in fact, little or nothing had been done to comply with my request of 30th May ultimo. On the 2nd instant I found CH 4 gas in two places adjacent to the place where W. Kelly got burned with CH 4 gas on the 9th instant, reported to me by you on the 9th and received by me on the 10th instant.
C—l 4
184
In my memorandum left in your mine report-hook in your office on the 6th instant I wished to impress you with the dangerous state of the mine through dry coaldust and CH 4 gas. In view of the happening on the 9th instant, I now request that shot-firers be appointed as required by Special Rule (d), and that the dangerous accumulation of dry coaldust on travelling-roads or elsewhere in the mine be dealt with in an adequate and efficient manner. Failure to comply with my request will be followed by prosecution for breaches of the Act, &c, thereunder. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. Mr. .J. Fletcher, Mine-manager, Taupiri Collieries, Huntly.
EXHIBIT I. Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), Huntly, 20th July, 1914. Dear Sir,—l beg to acknowledge your letter of the 11th instant, regarding your recent inspection of Ralph's Mine. In view of the reporting of firedamp by the examining deputies in this mine, I have authorized that all shots shall be fired by the men in charge of each section. The travelling-roads are receiving attention, the dust being watered regularly. Attached herewith please find extract from my report-book regarding the ignition when W. Kelly was burnt. Yours faithfully, J. Fletcher, Manager. Mr. Boyd Bennie, Inspector of Mines, Thames. EXHIBIT J. Firedamp. Mines Department, Inspector of Mines Office, Thames, 25th August, 1914. Sir,—With reference to my recent inspection of your colliery on the 21st and 22nd instant, I wish to impress upon you that should any further indications of firedamp take place in your mine to the personal injury of any workman or otherwise, of whatsoever dimensions, it may be necessary to insist upon the use of safety-lamps only in your mine. I trust you will give this matter your earnest consideration. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. Mr. J. Fletcher, Manager, Taupiri Collieries, Huntly. Mine-manager's Reply. 26th August, 1914. Dear Sic,—l beg to acknowledge your letter of the 25th instant, regarding firedamp and safety-lamps, and your remarks thereon have been noted. Yours faithfully, James Fletcher, Manager. EXHIBIT K. Office of Inspector of Mines, Thames, 30th May, 1914. Memorandum for Manager, Taupiri Mines (Limited), Huntly. On my visits of inspection to Ralph's Mine on the 19th and 20th instant, I noticed that there was a great amount of coaldust on the travelling-roads, and have to request that the same be remedied by spraying. From one of the coal-cutting machines in the Taupiri West section I noticed a youth clearing away coaldust. The air was also laden with dust, and as, in my opinion, it is unreasonable to ask persons to work under such conditions, I have to request that a jet of water be used for the purpose of laying the dust which accumulates. There appears to be no rule or restraint as to the shot-firing carried out by the miners, and the air is continually filled with smoke in the vicinity of where blasting operations are carried out, and therefore a greater volume of air is necessary to clear the atmosphere. I have to request that the above matters receive your early consideration and attention. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. EXHIBIT L. John Jackson: I am a olipper-on, and was employed at Ralph's Mine, Huntly. On 12th instant I was lowered into the mine shortly after 7 a.m. I had previously been instructed to go to No. 5 rope-road. I had no light, but when I reached the bottom of the shaft I asked Mr. 0' Brien if he could lend me a light. He said he could not. I told him I had a lamp, and he told me where I could get some oil at a place near the old stables on the main rope-road, which is now or was used as a latrine by the men. I proceeded along the main rope-road and reached the old stable before mentioned. I was about to get the oil when the explosion occurred. I heard the fall of some coal in the little dip section, or that is where it seemed to come from. This was shortly before the explosion occurred. I got blown down, and then a travelling flame came and I got severely burnt about the face and hands, also a portion of my body. I was taken to the Hamilton Hospital, where I am still an inmate. I have never known gas to exist in the mine before : I always considered the mine a safe one.
EXHIBIT J. Firedamp. Mines Department, Inspector of Mines Office, Thames, 25th August, 1914. Sir, —With reference to my recent inspection of your colliery on the 21st and 22nd instant, I wish to impress upon you that should any further indications of firedamp take place in your mine to the personal injury of any workman or otherwise, of whatsoever dimensions, it may be necessary to insist upon the use of safety-lamps only in your mine. I trust you will give this matter your earnest consideration. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. Mr. J. Fletcher, Manager, Taupiri Collieries, Huntly. Mine-manager's Reply. 26th August, 1914. Dear Sir,—I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 25th instant, regarding firedamp and safety-lamps, and your remarks thereon have been noted. Yours faithfully, James Fletcher, Manager.
EXHIBIT K. Office of Inspector of Mines, Thames, 30th May, 1914. Memorandum for Manager, Taupiri Mines (Limited), Huntly. On my visits of inspection to Ralph's Mine on the 19th and 20th instant, I noticed that there was a great amount of coaldust on the travelling-roads, and have to request that the same be remedied by spraying. From one of the coal-cutting machines in the Taupiri West section I noticed a youth clearing away coaldust. The air was also laden with dust, and as, in my opinion, it is unreasonable to ask persons to work under such conditions, I have to request that a jet of water be used for the purpose of laying the dust which accumulates. There appears to be no rule or restraint as to the shot-firing carried out by the miners, and the air is continually filled with smoke in the vicinity of where blasting operations are carried out, and therefore a greater volume of air is necessary to clear the atmosphere. I have to request that the above matters receive your early consideration and attention. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines.
EXHIBIT L. John Jackson : I am a olipper-on, and was employed at Ralph's Mine, Huntly. On 12th instant I was lowered into the mine shortly after 7 a.m. I had previously been instructed to go to No. 5 rope-road. I had no light, but when I reached the bottom of the shaft I asked Mr. 0' Brien if he could lend me a light. He said he could not. I told him I had a lamp, and he told me where I could get some oil at a place near the old stables on the main rope-road, which is now or was used as a latrine by the men. I proceeded along the main rope-road and reached the old stable before mentioned. I was about to get the oil when the explosion occurred. I heard the fall of some coal in the little dip section, or that is where it seemed to come from. This was shortly before the explosion occurred. I got blown down, and then a travelling flame came and I got severely burnt about the face and hands, also a portion of my body. I was taken to the Hamilton Hospital, where I am still an inmate. I have never known gas to exist in the mine before : I always considered the mine a safe one.
184a C—14. EXHIBIT Q. Report to the Coroner ok the Injuries beceived by those killed in the Huntly Mining Disastish. Sir, — Huntly, 15th September, 1914. The following is a detailed report on the injuries received by the miners whose lives were lost in the colliery disaster in Kalph's Mine on the 12th instant. The bodies were examined in series in the King's Hall as they were brought out of the shaft: — (1.) John Whorskey. —There were abrasions of the face and arms which were pigmented with coaldust. The skin-surface was charred, and the appearance was consistent with severe and sudden burning by a fierce heat, such as is produced by a flame of gas. An additional factor in the cause of death was no doubt the inhalation of poisonous gases. (2.) Samuel Jackson. —This man had injuries to his head and skull sufficiently severe to cause death. Post-mortem rigidity was well marked. The force of exploding gases carrying the body along the drive with great violence would account for such injuries. The skin was charred and loosened over the fingers. (3.) Jack Skellern. —This man's face was charred and pigmented with carbon, and the skin loosened from the hands and arms. Ihere was a fracture of the right leg and of the skull. Death was probably due to the direct consequence of the explosion, and he might have been hurled some distance dowv the drive in which he lay. (4.) William Burt. —This man was found lying on his back under a haulage-rope, which he held firmly in his hands. There was an injury to the head and right side of face and arm, but very little disfigurement. I am of the opinion that the deceased survived the explosion and succumbed to the poisonous gases. The skin was not greatly scorched. (5.) Jack Robinson. —This man had sustained a fracture of the right leg and left arm, and injuries to his skull. Death was due to direct violence. (6.) William Hinchco. —He was found lying in a manhole exactly opposite where Burt's body was found. He had sustained a compound fracture of the skull, and death must have been instantaneous and due to direct violence. He was probably creeping into the manhole, and was blown in against the walls by the force of exploding gases. (7.) Harry Peckman, sen. —He had injuries to his head, arms, and face, and the whole surface of the body showed appearances consistent with burning by the flames of gas. Death was due to shock and asphyxia and burns of a second degree on face and arms and hands. (8.) Jacob lad had severe abrasions and burns. These injuries were consistent with those which might be produced by a flame of gas, and if death was not instantaneous it followed as the result of the inhalation of noxious gases. (9.) James Holden. —This body had severe injuries to the head and face. The front of the nose and face was partly blown into the base of the skull, and there were injuries to the right arm. The face was peppered with coal in minute and larger fragments, which had been driven into the skin with explosive force. Death must have been instantaneous, and due to the great violence inflicted on the face and skull, which must have caused serious medullary injuries. (10.) G. Moloney. —This body showed charring of head and face due to flame. The hair was scorched and burned. The injuries were consistent with a flame striking the body with great force. Death was probably instantaneous and due to shock and burns. (11.) William Slavin. —The injuries were principally to face, which was charred and burnt, these injuries corresponding to severe burns inflicted by flame. Death was instantaneous. (12.) Robert Munsie. —There were injuries to face and hands and burns of varying degree and severity. Death was due to violence and burning. (13.) James Darby. —This man's body was almost unrecognizable. All the hairs of his beard and part of head had been completely burned off, and the skin was stripped off his arms up to the elbows. The burns were very severe, and death was either due to severe shock and almost immediate, or from asphyxia. (14.) William Kelly. —This man's hair was scorched and burnt. The appearances were consistent with those caused by burning by a flame of considerable intensity and violence. Although death may not have been immediate it was accelerated by asphyxia. (15.) Ban Lyons. —This man had an injury to his skull and a fracture of the left leg. He must have been hurled some distance with great violence. Death was due to burns and violence, as the appearances were consistent with such. (16.) Hutchinson Burt. —This body was supine when found, and the appearances were consistent with the inhalation of a noxious gas producing asphyxia. This body was the second found, and was examined in situ about 11. a.m. on Saturday, when the body was still warm. (17.) John Steele. —The appearance of this body was consistent with death by carbon monoxide poisoning. (18.) David Patterson. —This body was charred and burnt, and showed the characteristic injuries produced by a flame of great heat and violence. Death was probably instantaneous and due directly to burns and shock. (19.) William Paterson. —The hair of the moustache and head was partially burnt. The arms and hands were charred, and the appearances were such as one would expect from severe and sudden burns. (20.) Alexander Izatt. —This lad, who was burnt all over the body, died in the Hamilton Hospital. (21.) John Bowler. —This man had an injury to his nose. His face and hair were charred, and he must have been struck by a flame of intense violence and force. Death was instantaneous. (22.) William, Mayland. —This lad had received the most severe injuries of all (with one exception). His face was known to me, but I could not recognize it. He was burnt about the head and face. There was a fracture of the right leg below the knee and of the left leg below the knee. There were injuries to the face and possibly a fracture of the spine. Decomposition was proceeding apace. The multiplicity of this lad's injuries was incompatible with life, and the force which struck him must have been of terrific momentum. No explosion except one of unexampled violence could have produced such terrible injuries. (23.) William Dixon (or Mitchell). —The face was comparatively uninjured. The appearances were such as one would expect from death by direct violence and asphyxia.
C. 14. Inset.
(J. — 14
i«4B (24.) Fred. Taylor. —This man had injuries to his face and mouth, which were charred. They were obviously due to burning by a flame of great violence and intensity. (25.) Thou, ('assort. —This body had similar injuries to face and hands through burning by a flame. Death must have been due to the shock and violence of the burning. (26.) Theo. Molesworth. —The face was swollen, charred, and knocked about. The skin was off the hands. The feet were cut, and the appearances consistent with death by burning and asphyxia. (27.) Arthur Huston. —There were no marks on this body. Its appearance was consistent with death by asphyxia due to the inhalation of a noxious gas or deficiency of oxygen. (28.) Henry Jackson. —There was a compound fracture of the left side of this man's skull. Skin was burnt off the hands and hanging in shreds. Death must have been instantaneous, and the force of the burning flame which struck him must have been very great to bring about directly or indirectly such a terrible injury to the calvarium. The general surface of the body was severely burnt. (29.) Boper (?). —This man's body could not be identified. It was charred and blackened from head to foot, and the tongue was protruding from the mouth. The skin of the hands and arms was burned completely off, and the burns extended beneath the true skin. The end of the penis was completely burnt off, and the body was charred generally. Death was due to burning in an intense heat. The head was knocked about. (30.) William Allen. —This lad has sustained the most terrible injuries (with two exceptions). The top of his calvarium was completely blown away and the left side of his face was reduced to pulp. Most of the body was charred. A book in his pocket had the leaves charred and almost burnt away. The explosive force which burnt must have struck him about the region of the head and thorax and killed him on the spot. (31.) [Unidentified']. —This was the body of a small man of stout build. The top of the skull and brain and the right side of the face were completely blown away;- what remained of the cerebrum was pulped. A portion of the medulla oblongata was visible through the anterior aspect of the neck. Both legs were fractured below the knee, and both arms were fractured. Portions of them were blown off. The mutilation of the body was extreme. Most of the general shin area was burnt, including the testes. The explosive force which struck the man must have been tremendous. (32.) William Burton. —The skull and face of this man were generally injured and severely burnt—-in fact, the skin of the legs and thighs and some of the trunk was carbonized. A portion of the intestines was protruding through the abdominal wall (of which a portion was missing), and there were compound fractures of both legs below the knees. Death was instantaneous, and the body had been subjected to great heat. (33.) /. Greener. —The skin was off both hands; the front of the face blown in and charred. Fragments of the coal lay on the face and neck. Death was due to direct violence. Decomposition was taking place. (34.) William Gowans. —There were injuries to the head, and the hands were charred and denuded of skin. The neck was charred and scorched, and on the anterior surface of the neck were several pieces of coal as long as one's finger. Death was due to violence; the body was decomposing. (35.) William Brocklebank. —The head was injured, the face blown in, and the skin of the hands in fragments. The flesh was charred. Death was due to violence. (36.) Seymour Hopper. —The skin of the face was burnt off. Part of the upper lip was absent. The general body-surface charred and burnt, the skull fractured at the base, the right foot missing, and the left femur fractured in the middle third. The appearances were consistent with death by burning and extreme violence. (37.) William Blenkinsop. —There were injuries to the face and skull. The face, arms, and legs were charred. Death was due to direct violence, as the body bore evidence of having been struck by coal. (38.) John W. Jones. —The skin of the face and arms was burnt off—in fact, that on the arms was carbonized. The hair and side whiskers were completely burnt off, and there was evidence of violence —viz., from a fall of stone or coal. Death was instantaneous. The body was decomposing. (39.) Hugh Bansome. —The skin was burnt off the hands and face. The appearances were consistent with death by asphyxia due to the inhalation of noxious gases. (40.) Baker (?). —The body-surface was burnt and charred. The left thigh had been fractured, as the rest of the leg was missing. There was a fracture of the right femur, and the hair was completely burnt off the head and face. Death, which was due to direct violence, was instantaneous. (41.) Thos. Berry. —This man had a compound fracture of the leg above the ankle, a fracture of the same thigh above the knee, and a fracture of the right arm above the wrist. Death was due to violence. (42.) John Jackson died in the Waikato Hospital. The cause of death was burns. (43.) John Martin. —This man had a compound fracture of the skull (the vertex). An oblong piece of coal was driven into it. There were compound fractures of both legs below the knee, and a fracture of the left femur in the middle third. The body was devoid of clothing. There was a fracture of the right side of the ilium, where there was a wound exposing muscle. The intestines were exposed and charred, and there was charring of the skin of the thighs. Causes of Death. Violence ... ... • ■ • ■ • • • • • ■ ■ ■ • ■ • ... 12 Violence and burns... ... ... ... •• ■•■ ... 10 Burns and CO poisoning ... ... ... ... ... ... 6 Violence and poisoning ... ... .... ... ... ... ] CO poisoning ... ... ... ... ... .. ... G Burns and shock ... ... ... ... ... ... ... 7 Asphyxia ... ... ... ••■ •■• ■■■ ••■ ••■ 1 43 John Campbell Maodiarmjd, M.B., Ch.B. (Edin.).
185
C—l 4
EXHIBIT M. Alfred George Peckam : I am a fitter, and on the 12th instant I was employed as a fitter at Ralph's Mine, Huntly. I entered the mine on the date in question. At 7.20 a.m. I arrived at the bottom of the shaft and. went to the telephone, situated about 75 yards from the shaft. I was using the telephone for about three or four minutes when I heard a slight explosion in the old workings towards the shaft. I was using the telephone when the explosion occurred, and it was there I got burnt. I have no idea how the explosion occurred. I heard a little fall of coal first, then the explosion. It did not seem more than 30 or 40 yards away, in the little drive section. I got severely burnt about the face and arms. I was rescued and sent to the Hamilton Hospital, where lam still an inmate. I have never known gas to be in the mine before except in the old workings, which is a long way back off the main travelling-road, and no one has a right there except the officials. I always considered the mine a safe one.
EXHIBIT N. 4 p.m., 31/8/14." Ralph's Mine. I, the undersigned, have examined all the old workings and return airways of Nos. 6 and 7 south sections, and found all safe. No sign of heating. Ventilation good. D. Wear. EXHIBIT 0. Exhibit 0 is a letter from Professor Dixon to Minister of Mines, for which see Professor Dixon's evidence before Commission. EXHIBIT P. Mr. Gowans, Ralph's Mine. J. McGriLL asked me to inform you that he and S. Jackson carried out " red-hot coal " from the place in the little dip that was heating, but when they left the place " it was quite cool." I visited the place this morning and found all in order, really in the same cool state I left it in yesterday. T. E, W. EXHIBIT R. 2nd June, 1893. " On Earth Pulsations and Mine-gas." John Milne, F.R.S., F.G.S. Reference is made to seismometer used at Marsden. Mr. W. Brain draws attention to the fact that earthquakes in Great Britain are more frequent in winter months when explosions are more frequent. The writer refers to a close relationship between the siesmic activity in Italy and explosions in Germany. The writer concludes: "From the little information at the author's command it appears likely that firedamp escapes in greater quantity when earth pulsations are most frequent." At the conference of delegates of corresponding societies of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Ipswich, 1895, J. H. Merivale, the delegate, writes : " There are several papers by Professor Milne and Mr. Symons on ' Earth Tremors.' This matter may have a bearing upon the issue of gas in mines." ' ; The Glasgow Earthquake of the 14th December, 1910, in Relation to Mining." By J. W. Gregory, D.Sc, F.R.S. (Bth February, 1911). Vol. xli, Page 55. " To the colliery engineer, however, earth-movements are perhaps of most importance in connection with the evolution of firedamp. The apparent contradiction between many observations and the natural conclusion from the laws controlling gas-pressure may, perhaps, be reconciled by the possible effect of eaHh-movements; for there is much evidence to show that periods of high barometric pressure are those of especial seismic activity, which may occasion the liberation of gas from joints and cavities in the rocks. Hence, the increased discharge of gas at or after a period of high barometer may not be due directly to the air-pressure, but indirectly to the earth-movements which have resulted from the increased atmospheric load." The President (Mr. Robert McLaren, Inspector of Mines) said it was a paper which opened up a very wide subject. Professor Gregory had given them something to think about with regard to disturbances of the earth, and that gentleman would be glad to have the views of practical mining men on the matter. In replying to the discussion, Professor Gregory said, " He thought that there were wellestablished cases of the abundant discharge of gas from coal at times when the barometer was high. The suggestion that the cases which were so difficult to understand on the ordinary conditions of gaspressure might be due to earth-movements would, he hoped, be proved or disproved by further evidence. He hoped that the discussion would lead to the collection of further data upon this, unsettled problem."
EXHIBIT 0. Exhibit 0 is a letter from Professor Dixon to Minister of Mines, for which see Professor Dixon's evidence before Commission.
EXHIBIT P. Mr. Gowans, Ralph's Mine. J. McGill asked me to inform you that he and S. Jackson carried out " red-hot coal " from the place in the little dip that was heating, but when they left the place " it was quite cool." I visited the place this morning and found all in order, really in the same cool state I left it in yesterday. T. E. W.
EXHIBIT R. 2nd June, 1893. " On Earth Pulsations and Mine-gas." John Milne, F.R.S., F.G.S. Reference is made to seismometer used at Marsden. Mr. W. Brain draws attention to the fact that earthquakes in Great Britain are more frequent in winter months when explosions are more frequent. The writer refers to a close relationship between the siesmic activity in Italy and explosions in Germany. The writer concludes: "From the little information at the author's command it appears likely that firedamp escapes in greater quantity when earth pulsations are most frequent." At the conference of delegates of corresponding societies of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, held in Ipswich, 1895, J. H. Merivale, the delegate, writes : " There are several papers by Professor Milne and Mr. Symons on ' Earth Tremors.' This matter may have a bearing upon the issue of gas in mines." " The Glasgow Earthquake of the 14th December, 1910, in Relation to Mining." By J. W. Gregory, D.Sc, F.R.S. (8th February, 1911). Vol. xli, Page 55. " To the colliery engineer, however, earth-movements are perhaps of most importance in connection with the evolution of firedamp. The apparent contradiction between many observations and the natural conclusion from the laws controlling gas-pressure may, perhaps, be reconciled by the possible effect of earth-movements; for there is much evidence to show that periods of high barometric pressure are those of especial seismic activity, which may occasion the liberation of gas from joints and cavities in the rocks. Hence, the increased discharge of gas at or after a period of high barometer may not be due directly to the air-pressure, but indirectly to the earth-movements which have resulted from the increased atmospheric load." The President (Mr. Robert McLaren, Inspector of Mines) said it was a paper which opened up a very wide subject. Professor Gregory had given them something to think about with regard to disturbances of the earth, and that gentleman would be glad to have the views of practical mining men on the matter. In replying to the discussion, Professor Gregory said, " He thought that there were wellestablished cases of the abundant discharge of gas from coal at times when the barometer was high. The suggestion that the cases which were so difficult to understand on the ordinary conditions of gaspressure might be due to earth-movements would, he hoped, be proved or disproved by further evidence. He hoped that the discussion would lead to the collection of further data upon this, unsettled problem."
24—C. 14.
C—l 4
186
Barometer Readings (reduced to Sea-level), Auckland. September 1.. .. .. .. 29-78 September 9.. .. .. .. 3023 2 .. .. ... .. 29-78 „ 10.. .. .. .. 30-32 3 .. .. .. .. 29-93 „ 11.. .. .. .. 30-28 4 .. .. .. .. 30-02 „ 12.. .. .. .. 30-25 5 .. .. .. .. 30-03 „ 13.. .. .. .. 30-28 6 .. .. .. .. 30-08 „ 14.. .. .. .. 30-22 7 .. .. .. .. 30-14 „ 15.. .. .. .. 30-33 8 .. .. .. .. 30-10
EXHIBIT S. (Apparently a duplicate of Exhibit CC, p. 179, but with several slight differences.) Dominion Laboratory, Wellington, N.Z., 29th September, 1914. Report on Specimens No. E/1144, 1145 (1-3), 1146 (1, 2), forwarded by Mr. F. Reed, Inspecting Engineer. Particulars: Samples in connection with recent explosion in Ralph's Colliery— E/1144, single piece of coal; E/1145 (1-3), coaldust from mine; E/1146 (1, 2), brattice-cloth. Analyses of the coaldust and coal gave the following results:—
A microscopic examination showed that 1145 (2) contained a considerable number of charred particles. In the case of 1145 (3) it is doubtful if there are any charred particles, but in 1145 (4) there are undoubtedly some. The brattice-cloth when examined under a lower power gave undoubted evidence of singeing, and the dust on it also proved to have been charred. In order to determine the inflammability of this coal I have made the following experiments : A small amount of coal, ground to pass through a fine sieve (100 holes to the linear inch), was blown through a glass tube across the flame of a Meker burner (fixed horizontally) towards a piece of cottonwool supported in a clamp. By varying the distance of the cotton-wool from the flame of the burner it was possible to measure the greatest distance at which the coaldust flame would ignite the wool. Four coals ground to the same degree of fineness were examined by this method, and, as a result of a number of determinations, I have found the distances to be as follows : — Distance at which Coaldust Flame ignited Cotton-wool. Inches. Huntly E/l 144 (brown coal) .. .. .. .. .. ..20 Westport-Stockton (bituminous coal) .. .. .. .. ..16 Aberdare Collieries, New South Wales (bituminous coal) .. .. 13 Wales (anthracite) .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 2| These results show that the Huntly coaldust is very inflammable, and that the flame of the ignited dust travels greater distances than ordinary bituminous coals such as Westport-Stockton and Aberdare. Such properties would render the coaldust very effective in carrying on and intensifying an explosion once started. The four coals referred to above gave the following results on analysis:— Fixed Carbons. Hydro-carbons. Water. Ash. Huntly .. .. .. •• -. •• 44-23 41-07 13-14 1-56 Westport-Stockton .. .. .. .. .. 58-50 39-98 1-34 0-18 Aberdare .. .. .. •• ■• •• 52-54 41-59 2-46 340 Wales (anthracite) .. .. .. .. .. 89-07 6"51 2-27 2-15 J. S. Maclaurin, D.Sc, F.C.S., Dominion Analyst. Reference : No. 13, dust from bord W.C., No. 5 district; No. 14, dust from near No. 6 cabin haulage-roadway ; No. 15, dust from main haulage-roadway at No. 4 level; No. 16, dust from piece of Ralph's Colliery coal; No. 17, dust from near flat sheet No. 5 jig.
E/1144. E/1145 (2), E/1145 (2), No. 13, on through 30 mesh. 30 mesh. 1145 (3), No. 14, on 30 mesh. 1145 (3), through 30 mesh. 1145(4), No. 15, on 30 mesh. 1145 (4), through 30 mesh. 'ixed carbon [ydro-carbons 44-23 41-07 13-14 T56 42-7 40-9 12-3 4-1 44-1 38-7 10-1 7-1 35-3 36-0 13-0 15-7 33-6 34-7 12-9 18-8 22-8 30-5 8-8 37-9 24-9 35 3 9-5 30-3 Skater .. .sh 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0 100-0
187
C—l 4
EXHIBIT T. Dear Sic, — Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), Huntly, New Zealand, 9th July, 1914. I have to report that William Kelly, a contractor, was slightly burned about the chest through an ignition of firedamp in Ralph's Mine at 10.30 a.m. this morning. It occurred in the stone drive that is being constructed for regrading the haulage-road. This drive was only connected yesterday by the two ends meeting, and a good current of air was flowing through. It appears from a statement made by Kelly that he went back for a drink, and in the act of doing so he lighted up the gas that had collected suddenly, because previous to this he had been three times to the same place for the same purpose and all was clear. Two or three days will make Kelly fit again. Yours faithfully, The Inspector of Mines, Thames. James Fletcher, Manager.
EXHIBIT U. Dear Sir, — Taupiri Coal-mines (Limited), Huntly, New Zealand, 4th June, 1914. I beg to acknowledge your letter of the 30th ultimo, regarding your inspection of Ralph's Mine on the 19th and 20th ultimo, and your remarks thereon have been noted. I am, &c, Boyd Bennie, Esq., Inspector of Mines, Thames. J. Fletcher, Manager. EXHIBIT V. The following is a copy of a memorandum left in the mine-manager's (Mr. Fletcher's) report-book on the 2nd July, 1914. 2nd July, 1914.—T0-day, with the underviewer, Mr. Gowans, I have examined several places in the Ralph's Mine, especially two places in the main dip, old workings, ofi the main haulage-dip road behind the haulage winch, near Doolie's (I think it is called No. 7), and found gas there in both places. In one the area would be 144 cubic feet by T5 ft. high, full of gas equals 212 cubic feet of gas ; in the other place an amount of gas equal to between 200 and 300 cubic feet. In the little dip section old bords, three places, falls where gas had been found by Deputy D. Wear and reported, we found no trace of CH 4 gas. Coaldust on the travelling-road main dip found in dangerous quantity; the dust should be adequately watered. No. 6 level district leading to Taupiri West, coaldust in dangerous quantity on my previous visit. In view of CH 4 gas being found in the mine, this dust should be removed or watered, and all shots fired by officials appointed for that purpose. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. EXHIBIT W. Statement of Case for Opinion. 27th August, 1914. On the 9th July ultimo a miner named William Kelly was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas in the Taupiri Coal Company's mine. The examining deputy reported finding gas in Kelly's working-place on the Ist July ultimo, but on each succeeding morning up to and including the 9th July (date of accident) the examining deputy reported the place clear (safe). The Coal-mines Act, 1908, section 60, states : " Accident in mine prima facie evidence of neglect." Special Rule 14, Second Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908, states : " The underviewer, under the ■direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended." The manager did not order safety-lamps to be used, and Kelly was using a naked light. Under the above circumstances, Is the manager guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14, Second Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908 ? B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. Mr. E. N. Miller, Barrister and Solicitor, Thames. i EXHIBIT X. Dear Sir,— Thames, Ist September, 1914. We are asked to advise you, with reference to an accident which occurred in the Taupiri Coal Company's mine on the 9th July last, as to whether the mine-manager was, in respect of the circumstances of such accident, guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14 in the Second Schedule of the Coal-mines Act, 1908. The material facts are that on the date in question a miner named William Kelly, who was then using a naked light, was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas ; that the examining deputy reported finding gas in the place on the Ist July, and on each day subsequent to the Ist up to and including the 9th July (except Sunday) the examining deputy reported the place clear and safe. The material
EXHIBIT V. The following is a copy of a memorandum left in the mine-manager's (Mr. Fletcher's) report-book on the 2nd July, 1914. 2nd July, 1914. —To-day, with the underviewer, Mr. Gowans, I have examined several places in the Ralph's Mine, especially two places in the main dip, old workings, off the main haulage-dip road behind the haulage winch, near Doolie's (I think it is called No. 7), and found gas there in both places. In one the area would be 144 cubic feet by 1'5 ft. high, full of gas equals 212 cubic feet of gas ; in the other place an amount of gas equal to between 200 and 300 cubic feet. In the little dip section old bords, three places, falls where gas had been found by Deputy D. Wear and reported, we found no trace of CH 4 gas. Coaldust on the travelling-road main dip found in dangerous quantity ; the dust should be adequately watered. No. 6 level district leading to Taupiri West, coaldust in dangerous quantity on my previous visit. In view of CH 4 gas being found in the mine, this dust should be removed or watered, and all shots fired by officials appointed for that purpose. B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines.
EXHIBIT W. Statement of Case for Opinion. 27th August, 1914. On the 9th July ultimo a miner named William Kelly was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas in the Taupiri Coal Company's mine. The examining deputy reported finding gas in Kelly's working-place on the 1st July ultimo, but on each succeeding morning up to and including the 9th July (date of accident) the examining deputy reported the place clear (safe). The Coal-mines Act, 1908, section 60, states : " Accident in mine prima facie evidence of neglect." Special Rule 14, Second Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908, states: " The underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended." The manager did not order safety-lamps to be used, and Kelly was using a naked light. Under the above circumstances, Is the manager guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14, Second Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908 ? B. Bennie, Inspector of Mines. Mr. E. N. Miller, Barrister and Solicitor, Thames.
EXHIBIT X. Dear Sir, — Thames, 1st September, 1914. We are asked to advise you, with reference to an accident which occurred in the Taupiri Coal Company's mine on the 9th July last, as to whether the mine-manager was, in respect of the circumstances of such accident, guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14 in the Second Schedule of the Coal-mines Act, 1908. The material facts are that on the date in question a miner named William Kelly, who was then using a naked light, was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas ; that the examining deputy reported finding gas in the place on the 1st July, and on each day subsequent to the 1st up to and including the 9th July (except Sunday) the examining deputy reported the place clear and safe. The material
C—l 4
188
part of Special Rule 14 provides that " The underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended." The Act and regulations provide that an examination of the mine is to be made each day (or, according to circumstances, twice per day). This examination was made, with the result noted above. It seems to us that the question submitted is a simple question of fact. There can be no doubt as to the meaning of Special Rule 14. The test to be applied under that rule to any set of circumstances is, we think, this : Would a reasonable man have apprehended danger from firedamp ? And as to the liability of the manager we may add the further test: "Were the steps taken all that a reasonable man would take to ascertain whether or not there was firedamp ? As to the first question, we do not think that it could possibly be suggested that the minemanager had any reason for fearing danger from firedamp. The Act and regulations provide that an underviewer is to be appointed, whose duty it is to examine the mine daily, and it is as a result of his examination that work is or is not undertaken in any part of the mine. In the case now under consideration the underviewer made examinations, and for several days preceding the accident everything was reported all safe, and ventilation good. In view of the fact of which you inform us, that with good ventilation a mine could be clear and work could quite safely be undertaken a day after gas was reported, we cannot conceive a reasonable man who relied on the underviewer's reports having any fear whatever of danger from firedamp. So that the manager could not, we think, be held to be guilty of an offence unless he could be said to have neglected Special Rule 14, or, in other words, unless the steps taken by him were less than would be taken by a reasonable man to ascertain the presence of firedamp. As stated above, the Act and regulations provide what is to be done as to examining the mine, and although a bare compliance with the letter of the statute is not necessarily sufficient, yet such a compliance (which is undoubtedly shown in this case) is prima facie evidence of reasonable care having been taken. And the evidence required to rebut such a prima facie case would have to show very definitely that the mine-manager did in some way neglect his duty. But there is nothing whatever in the facts submitted by you to us which suggests that the manager was in any way whatever neglectful. And on those facts we do not think that a Magistrate could or would find the manager guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14. Miller and Son. The Inspector of Mines, Thames.
By Authority : John Mackay, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l4. Prize 3s. 6d.]
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1914-I.2.1.4.24
Bibliographic details
HUNTLY MINING ACCIDENT (REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE., Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1914 Session I, C-14
Word Count
195,079HUNTLY MINING ACCIDENT (REPORT OF ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE), TOGETHER WITH MINUTES OF EVIDENCE. Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1914 Session I, C-14
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.
Log in