C.—6

24

293. To prevent loss of life?— No. The explosive force was so strong that it forced the black smoke out at the mouth of the intake, where Mr. Bishop fell. That would be all sucked back, and it would return from the intake at the speed the fan would draw it, and go back through the return. 294. Then there is no possible way of preventing accidents like this occurring ?—Yes ; I think so—by using safety-lamps and having no blasting. 295. And I take it that is the only way to prevent accidents ?—That is the only feasible way that has presented itself to me in the meantime. 296. You do not know any way by which you can make the mine safe to work except by using safety-lamps and without using powder ? —I will not say that, but lam telling you the way I have arranged in the meantime. 297. Until you find some better way ?•—Yes. 298. W r ith reference to the Coolgardie drive, how far would you have to drive to connect with the hill-workings?— That would depend upon the point from which you want to connect with Coolgardie. If a drive were put in from the dynamo on plan, it would be a matter of 24 chains. The men working in the dip-workings would have been killed all the same. One man was got out alive, near the mouth of the mine. He was said to be 14 chains in from the mine mouth. 299. Was he overcome? — Yes. 300. Could not you conduct the air down in this direction [indicated] ?—Those were old workings and falls, and as far as I know it would not have made any difference; and to have had an airlead up to Coolgardie would simply have been the means of introducing explosive matter into the Coolgardie workings. 301. Do you think a rise to Coolgardie then would be useless in case of an accident occurring ? —Of course, the more outlets you have the better, but Ido not see that it would have made any difference. It would simply have introduced the explosion into the Coolgardie workings. 302. Assuming the coal-dust lay along these workings ?—I mean that. 303. Have you any way of cleaning up the large amount of coal-dust which accumulates in this mine ? —I have already done so. There is a certain amount of coal-dust in every mine; but there is also small coal and rubbish that the force of the explosion would tear up and convert into dust. Then the pieces of coal flying through the air from the knocked-about trucks, together with the dust lodged in the crevices and pick-marks, would also add to the explosion. There is certainly a very great deal more dust about the mine since the explosion than there was before. 304. You would have to ballast the rails with something else than small coal ?—lt was sodden wet stuff before it was hardened with traffic, and I never for a moment thought it would have turned into coal-dust and assisted the explosion. 305. Still you find it has done so ?—lt has been burnt up. 306. In your opinion, you should ballast these lines with something else than small coal, in order to make them perfectly safe?— That is so. 307. And of course to use safety-lamps, and have no blasting?— That is a different matter altogether. 308. Is not gunpowder rather out of date ? Do they not use flameless explosives as a rule now ?—Are you talking of New Zealand ? 309. lam talking of the Home collieries?—l came out in 1880, so that I can only refer to what was done then, and to what I have heard since. The so-called flameless explosives have been tested in Coalbrookdale, and I understand that some detonators got into the coal which was taken to Wellington, and exploded when the coal was used there. 310. You know, as a matter of fact, that the flame generated by these high explosives is not so great as that which comes from a blown-out gunpowder charge ?—Not so great. 311. Therefore, the danger is much less?— Much less. 312. Did you examine all the stoppings in the mine as you went through ?—All that came under my notice. Of course, you cannot get into every little crevice and cranny, but I made a thoroughly good and honest inspection of the mine. I neglected no part of my duty; I gave myself to my work, and carried it out thoroughly. 313. There are wood-stoppings here and there—deal-board stoppings [indicated.] What have you to say about them ? Did you see them ?—I do not recollect just now. 314. Did you ever see any permanent stoppings made of brattice?— There was the undercast, situated here [indicated on plan], but it is sufficiently strong for a horse to go over ; and then, in this spot [indicated] there has been another, where we used to walk across, and a little further on there was a 9in. brick-stopping, which was blown away. [Witness fully described the position of the stoppings on the plan.] 315. What were the majority of the stoppings composed of?— Many were brattice-cloth. 316. Do you consider brattice-cloth stoppings sufficiently good stoppings ? In case of accident they would be useless ?—Yes, but the brick would have been the same. 317. Why did they have two brick-walls in the centre ?—You might have had all of the stoppings solid, but then the mine could not have been worked. 318. Is it not the usual custom to have two brick-walls a certain distance apart, with dirt filled in between?— No. Of course, if you had two brick-walls, it would be better, but in going round places where the brattice was used you would not be expected to have brick-stoppings; and if they were insisted on by Act of Parliament it would mean that the mine could not be worked. It would be too expensive. 319. But still, brick would be preferable to brattice-cloth ?—For taking the air round a face brattice is fairly sufficient. 320. But in case of an explosion it goes down quickly ?—There is no doubt of that. 321. And the air then goes in all ways? —The circulation is, of course, destroyed. 322. When you have seen them bringing air up to the face you say you sometimes instructed the men to brattice low down, away from the face. Would you leave the brattice in?—