C.—6

14

45. When was this given to you by Mr. Bishop? —I think I got it shortly after 3rd December, 1895. [Witness explained the plan and position of the dip-workings.] 46. How far had the roof settled and the mine closed ?—You can hardly pick your way among these places, as I think the roof has come down every few feet, and it is not safe to go right in past the edges of the goaf. 47. Is there any place where the dust could accumulate in the goaf ?—Any coal that would be left in the goaf would be crushed into pieces—into dust. There is dust more or less throughout every mine. 48. Have you been in workings that have been abandoned for a few months ? Have you visited them without merely going into the goaf ?—Where the men were working I would examine, and I would also go into suspicious places. 49. During your inspection you would have to visit the new works going on?—' Sometimes. 50. Did you ever observe that they were dusty ?—There was more or less small coal, and there was certainly some dust. I would not call it a dry and dusty mine. 51. Was the floor at all damp in those portions of the mine where any work was going on? Was there any water dripping?—At various places in the mine there was dripping water, but at that place there was none [indicated]. 52. Did the floor rise, as well as the roof come down ?—There was a tendency for the floor to rise in places. 53. Was it dry-crush or a wet, damp, sticky stuff?—l could only say that on account of the downward pressure the floor, being the weakest part, came up. 54. Was any stuff squeezed out between the timbers? —No. 55. Can you form any opinion how long it took the dust to settle in the bords after they ceased to work in them ? Was it a matter of weeks or months ?—That is a matter of opinion. 56. Have you ever made any observation ?—Yes ; I considered this question of coal-dust and took samples of it from off the main incline—off caps or bars. 57. That was the first time your attention was called to the dust?—My mind has always been alive to this question of dust ever since I have been an Inspector. 58. Have you made it part of your report on the mine to report as to how far it was a dry mine or otherwise? —I did not, as far as lam aware, send in a special report. I have spoken to the managers of all coal-mines warning them, and I have seen the question mentioned in the Home papers. I also went into it as far as I could with the means at my disposal, and took samples of the dust for examination by the microscope. I put in [Exhibit No. 4] samples of dust taken in the main incline off the cap or bar. I examined this specimen under a powerful microscope and could see nothing unusual as compared with other dusts. 59. Were the particles rounded or angled?—At the edge of the section they are fringed. I compared mine mentally with those I have seen in the Old Country as to whether it was a dry mine or not. I consider it is not a dry or dusty mine. Compared with Coal Pit Heath it was not even so dusty nor so dry, but still there was a moderate amount of dust, as there is in many mines, and small coal and rubbish. 60. Was there any part of the mine in the vicinity of the workings where such dust as you have referred to could have accumulated without being detected—l mean any part that was not visited by any fireman, inspectors, or yourself at any time ?—No more than the ordinary workings a little way back from the face. At the faces dust does not accumulate so much. A little way back from the faces there is more or less dust. 61. Mr. Skellon.] After the explosion did you take samples of dust?—l did take samples ; but owing to having to leave Westport suddenly, I had to leave them; but I could get them. When going through the mine with Mr. Bishop on the 17th November I drew his attention to the amount of stuff lying in one of these bords. 62. Sir J. Hector.] What do you mean by stuff?— Small-coal, rubbish, and stone. And his reply was, " But you will observe it is stone." I looked, and saw it was so, and not dry dust, and I considered his answer satisfactory. 63. You were about to explain the difference between these plans ? —This is a tracing [Exhibit No. 3] first sent by Bishop, and I made a plan from it. 64. What was the date ?—His workings are shown here up to the 4th November, 1894. [Exhibit No. 3, plan of workings, dated 4th November, 1894, put in.] I made a plan from this. 65. This is a plan [Exhibit No. 5, plan dated 2nd September, 1895] sent by Mr. Bishop before or after this one [Exhibit No. 6, plan dated 3rd December, 1895] ?—Before. 66. I understand the latter [Exhibit No. 5] was something intermediate between this [Exhibit No. 6] and that [Exhibit No. 3]?— That was the first [Exhibit No. 3], that the second [Exhibit No. s], and this [Exhibit No. 6] is the last. [Exhibit No. 6, plan up to 2nd December, 1895, put in.] When I got this tracing [Exhibit No. 5] from Mr. Bishop I found there was a difference in the line of the main incline from that shown in plan [Exhibit No. 3]. 67. The Chairman.] Is it required by the Act that the plan should be sent ?—Yes ; forwarded to the Inspector. 68. Sir J. Hector.] You said something about a discrepancy. Were these plans sent in consequence of a discussion as to accuracy? —The third one [Exhibit No. 6] was sent because the other two did not agree [Exhibits Nos. 3 and s]. It was an important thing, because the line of dip might throw the workings nearer the fault, and that might tap the water. Therefore, I wrote for a third tracing, and Mr. Bishop sent it along showing that this first one [Exhibit No. 3] was right. The third tracing agreed with the first, and the intermediate one was wrong, according to Mr. Bishop. 69. What was the amount of error in the plan ?—lt varied from a little here at top of dip to a chain down to the foot of the dip.