OFFICIAL INQUIRY

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, 16 October 1914, Page 4

OFFICIAL INQUIRY

WORK OF COMMISSION. \ TUESDAY. I i Joseph Young, assistant to Dan. Wear, demurred agai:‘iiat giving evidence without a subpoena, On the chairman giving 1 orders that one be issued, he filtered the box. His former evidence as read was put in. In reply to Mr Wilford he said he held a certificate as a gas-tester issued by the inspecting engineer of mines, Mr Frank Reed. Witness left the mine because of ill-health, which he declared was due to slow poisoning by carbonic acid gas. The state of the mine caused him a great deal of concern on two occasions last 'April, when he found large accumulations of gas. Asked what he meant by large accumulations,, witness replied, “ Hundreds of thousands of cubic feet, " and queried : “Would you like to know what I did find ? ” Mr Wilford replied in the affirmative. Witness made a written calculation and answered: “ 33,600 cubic feet. ” Have you found gas in No. 5 south and in the little winch level and two other places ? —Yes Was the gas in dangerous quantities ? Yes, that is what I said all along. Which do you consider the dustiest part of the mine ? The travelling roads where most of the men travel. Do you know of occasions when men have been burned by gas ignited from boreholes ? —No. To Mr Napier: Witness did not' think there was a large quantity of carbonic acid gas in the mine, but he left because he had been in it so long. If he had told anyone that he believed there would be an explosion he had not in mind the presence of the carbonic acid gas, which was a nonsupporter of life, and not combustible. Witness would consider 33,600 cubic feet of gas a dangerous quantity to be in the refine. On the occasion he found this large quantity he reported it to the under manager. The latter disputed tlie accuracy of his estimate. As far as he knew the 1 gas was removed or diffused within ’ a week. The gas came, lie thought, from a large feeder. His observations led him to believe that in the large accumulation the poisonous portion of the gas was being dissipated. He knew of no other way that this'Couid be done than . lyf ventilation, 'A — Whenever he reported~~gaS. Iw always considered it to be dangerous. His duty, he considered, ended with reporting gas. He did not consider lie was under any obligation to estimate the quantity. That was the manager’s business. To. Mr Tanks: He was tested , as a gas examiner at the Mines Department’s Office at the Exhibition by Mr Frank Reed. He 1 had to answer no questions in regard to mining. The two big accumulations of gas he found frightened him. Nevertheless, lie did not leave the mine. He supposed familiarity bred contempt. He rfever told any of the miners about the gas he had fqund. Before working in tho ’ mine lie had worked at times in the bar of the hotel. To Mr Macassey : He believed the mine to be dangerous to himself and his fellow-workers, but had not so reported to the mining inspector, us he was only an assistant. Besides, “ sviiat sort of time would he.have got if he had reported it to the manager who knew all about it. To the Chairman: He could not say how it was that others had worked longer in the mine than himself without being affected in health. To Mr Dowgray: In the old workings there were places where the ventilation was not good. if witness overstepped iiis duty in reporting that he considered gas to be present in a dangerous quantity the manager might have upbraided him. That was what he meant by asking “ what sort of a time he would have got.” To Mr Brow’ll: The Underviewer was with witness in No 7 south when he discovered the the 33,600 ft of gas. Mr Brown : In the interests of others, did you not think it was your duty to report this enormous quantity of gas? —No. I was not worrying about anyone else. The law of self preservation comes first. I did not want to be officious. .Mr Wilford: It would have been like a constable arresting the superintendent of police. Mr Brown: Not at all. This is a ranch more serious matter. If a. mail is afraid to report to the manager because the latter might say something to him, and if his fellow-workers are in danger then it is clearly, his duty to report to the inspector of mines, who would not divulge his name. Witness: I am not afraid of any man. If there is trouble I do not care. I am only,telling the truth. Mr Brown: Ido not suggest that you are not telling the truth. I am merely pointing out that there is a clause ill the Act which made 1 it your duty to report what you I considered to lie dangerous conditions. However, you did hot do it. r Witness: Certainly not. I William Wood, manager of Extended mine, replying to Mr Wilford, raid that judging from

the position of Martin’s body he would think Martin passed t hrough the door from No 5 into No 6 fiord, and that in opening the door, he liberated a large reservoir of gas, the ignition of which caused the explosion. Witness had examined the mine | on the Thursday after the disas- ! ter. with the mining inspector. I They had found gas in places l from the floor to as high as they could reach. If gas was got on the ground in .an open bord it ! must reach the roof. Witness tested for the gas and estimated the quantity found at. roughly, 100,009 cubic feet. This accumulation of gas was in No 5 section. It was cleared away by ventilation. When he visited the place eleven days later he did not test to the roof, but was satisfied the workings were clear. | To Mr D.owray : There was a j doubt whether men were sent in j to No. 5 to lift rails on the [ morning of the 12:h. To Mr Brown : Had there | been a big accumulation of gas j in that particular bord the body j of Martin would never have been found. Charles Allen had been a miner for 40 years up to 2 ye rs ago, and hid bean in and about Kimihia, Extended and Ralph’s mines for 14 years. He had worked in Ralph’s up to the time of the first trouble. After drilling. gas had bean found in Ralph’s mine nine years ago, and on other two occasions. Before ! knock off one day he put in 4' 6" hole, but insufficent powder caused him to delay charging till next morning when the gas in the hole was lighted by flame of his lamp. When testingfor depth of cover another ignition took place three years ago in the Little Dip section he and Fulton were working in a heading when an ignition took place. To Mr Tunks: All ignitions occurred in the Little Dip Section Mr Might was then in charge of the kmine. No. damage was done and neither he nor his mates were burned. Wm. Geo. Wright, police constable, was one of the first two of the first rescue party that went down the mine after the explosion. He knew where Martin’s body was as he had gone down to get it. On Martin there was nothing but boots, tlm socks having been stripped off above the tops ,f the bo its. He did not see a coat, having gone in and out in the dark. About half way up No. 6 bord witness found a boot. It was not that of Martin whose body was reached later. He never went through any door then or afterwards. To Mr Tunks: Ho just picked up and dropped the boot. ’.To, Chairman: He did not know whose hoot it was. Wo Mr D -wgrav; Mar in’s boots were identified by Mr T. Malloy and hi- sister identified teeth. John Jam - Clout, head bauksi! • ’■ at Ralph’s mine, in.reply t > Mr Wilford, stated lh»i, Jio men wenV dow.i at 7 o’clock when the whistle blew on the moraiug of the

accident. The head deputies went down in the first or second cage with the under-manager Dudley Starr would know when -the examining deputies went down. Things were not done flLraore loosely on an off morning ■ than on an ordinary working day. W He lowered four cages, and kept I a tally which had been blown la way- He was working about W 30 yards from the head of the r shaft when he heard a roar. The brakesman took delivery of whatever came up. He had on only one occasion seen hot stuff come up. Molesworth senr. drew his attention to it as it came over the picking belt. He did not know and had not heard that escapes of gas were generally discussed by the men. Dixon had said nothing to him about gas. WEDNESDAY. Frank Reed, Inspecting Engineer of mines, was the next witness. In reply to Mr Wilford he said that while examining candidates for certificates in gas-testing his suspicions of the safety of the Taupiri mines were roused by the number of Huntly candidates, some of •whom told him there was gas in the mine, and of burnings that had occurred. He wrote the Inspector, Mr Boyd Bennie, asking about these, and in reply Mr Bennie stated that the union would give him no information. In January last witness reported the management to the Undersecretary for Mines for an alleged breach of the law in not reporting injuries to men burned by gas explosions. In that letter he observed that all the conditions for a colliery disaster were present. In conversation with the Under-Secretary subsequently, he mentioned the con-: ditions at Ralph’s, and stated that if a disaster occurred as a result of the inadequacy of the law, the Inspecting branch of the Department could not be held responsible. In a letter written to his chief after this conversation: he said “I fear a holocaust at Ralph’s mine.” On July 29 he wrote to the Under-Secretary again, drawing attention to the burning of the miner Kelly in Ralph’s. In this letter he said :~ “ It might have been a holocaust. The seriousness of these explosions at Huntly cannot be lightly passed over. The responsibility of our Department i> enormous. Should another fetilangata or Brunner disaster f .cur, me public would condemn qs. The manager should be made to realize the seriousness -•of the position.” r"* On August 11, he again sugr gested that a prosecution in cont nection with the injuries to Kelly would do good even if it failed, and in reply to the Undersecretary who asked for particulars relating to the dangerous.conditions as reported by Inspector Bennie and for suggestions as to remedial measures, he replied on August 19, when he stated that fire-damp Wks prevalent in Ralph’s mine, that several miners had been burned by gas, and that a disaster was possible. He recommended that the use of safety lamps be insisted upon. Eight days before the occurrence of the disaster he met Mr Bennie at the Thames, and demonstrated to him in a mine there the efficacy of the electric safety lamps he had brought with him. He asked him to take the lamps to Huntly. and endeavour to get the manager to instal them throughout Ralph’s mine. On the day preceding the disaster he was in Greymouth, and mentioned his fears to Mr I. A. James, manager of the State mine. On six different occasions he had warned the Department of the possibility of an explosion in Ralph’s mine. The disaster was started by a naked light, and thus it was caused by the non-use of safety lamps. Witness considered the pillars in Ralph’s mine to be dangerous. There was evidence that gas was being given off in the newer workings of Ralph’s. Some of the bords were the highest he had ever seen. That made them them difficult to test for gas. He considered it a remarkably dangerous, and dusty mine. The coal dust was highly explsive. Witness tested some himself, and it exploded like gunpowder.. After the disaster, witness measured 350,000 cubic feet of gaseous mixture. There were 40 chains of bords full of this mixture. The bords were 14ft. wide and averaged 10ft. high. There was no ventilating current. Witness went up as far as he could in the bords. If there was gas on the lower end of an inclined bord it was certain the gas went right up to the top. The gaseous mixture present was well above the explosive point (9.6.) He found fire damp in the returns, too. The most explosive proportion of the gaseous mixture was about 10 per cent. The samples he took on the floor were 1.8, 3.7, and 1.65 per cent., and at the level of his cap 5.4 per cent. He did not not go near the roof, only feel- ’ mg his way round the foot of L the bords. Had he gone further he would not have survived. Ho could have got 10 percent, anywhere by climbing a few feet. None of the samples contained after-damp, which was the product of an explosion, in any appreciable quantity. The amount of gas mentioned would not be all that was exuded in six days. . Some of the gas as well as the fire-damp would be removed by ventilation, so that there was more gas given off after the explosion than he could measure. A very small quantity would suffice to start a violent explosion. This was agreed upon by the highest authorities in the

s world. The most distinguished 1 of the latter, Sir R. A. Redmayne, says that little damage is i done near the point of the origin t of the explosive flame, also that 3 after the cessation of the ady vancing explosion there may oc- . cur a back-lash or rebound of the t force. Could you say as the result of : your inspection which man 3 started the explosion ? —I am . satisfied it was Martin, f Continuing, the witness said i that in the bord above where f Martin was found was a dome j containing 68,000 cubic feet cf r gas. Witness theorised that on t the day of the accident Martin t was walking up the bord, and r probably carried the light—on 1 his hat —gradually into the dome, and ignited the 68,000 ft of gas above his head. It was in that locality that witness measured the gas after the explosion. Mr Wilford: If there had been t a proper inspection of No 6 bord ! on the morning of the 12th.by a ; competent man, with a safety lamp, would any lives have been lost on that day?—No, most decidedly not. An adequate test, made sufficiently high, would have revealed the gas. The fan at Ralph’s was up to requirements as to capacity, said witness, but lie thought that with such a difficult mine to ventilate, a larger one, should be used One of the special rules in the Mines Act provided for enforcing the use of the safety-lamps where conditions were unsafe for naked lights. Summarising his reasons for the fears which made him write six times to the Department as to Ralph’s mine, witness said they were : (1) The large area of high workings ; (2) the difficulty of maintaining ventilation sufficient to prevent the explosion of gas and the amount of dust; (3) the weakness of the Act; (4) the use of naked lights and of flame producing explosives ; and, (5) the fact that inexperienced men examined for gas owing to the lack of facilities in New Zealand for instructing colliers regarding the danger of gas. The old workings should be provided with locked doors to keep people out. Each door should have ventilating spaces at the top. and a danger notice threatening prosecution. To Mr Napier : Witness had no defined duties in connection with privately-owned coal mines. He did as he was directed to do by the. TT nde’--Secretary for mines and ae had no official position. If asked to report as to whether mining inspectors were doing their duty he would do so. He did not condem his comrades, but only report’d facts, with no wish to injure a ybody. It was one of his duti.s to write the official report for Parliament on the gold and coal -mines of the Dominion. Have you reported to Parliament what you have report,.d to this commission regarding the Taupiri mines? I have not written my report for this year yet. I only heard of the condition of Ralph’s mine by accident and not from your company, which suppressed facts. So you discovered the state ot the mine by accident ? —More by good fortune, I would say. Then but for this good fortune you might have gone on 10 years without discovering the condition of the mine?— Yes, the facts have been suppressed very successfully. Is it a good system do you think under which the inspector can be deceived? —The inspector was dealing with deceitful people who had failed to report explosions that had occurred. It is possible then to deceive and keep in the dark the inspecting engineer of mines in Nev Zealand? Of course it is. How long have you held that position?— Eight years. And, as a fact, for seven years you did not know the condition of the Taupiri mines, and were successfully deceived? — I was not informed. You do not inspect a mine unless specially asked to do so by the Under-Secretary ? That is so. Had you any reason to think Inspector Bennie was not carrying out his duties properly?—l am not going to condemn him just because jye had some differences of opinion. I have never reported him. Do you supervise the inspectors ? No; they are under the control of the Undersecretary. Were you and the Government for seven years ignorant of the fact that gas in dangerous quantities existed in the Taupiri Mines ? —Yes. Is the system that allows of such a thing a good one? —Well, there are too few inspectors. Prior to last Christmas the condition of the mine was bad. Did you report the fact to the Minister ? —N o. Would the existence of a small quantity of gas in a mine compel you to class the conditions as had ? —No. There would be other factors to consider. What is the minimum amount of gas it would take to cause an explosion ? I could not say without experimenting how much would be required to blow up a mine. Do you mean to say you would experiment to see how much gas would blow up a mine? —You people here have been experirnfe to see how much would do 1 u say deliberately that the ti i ri Company or its miners h / been making experiments fw >■•;e how much gas would blow up' the mine? —I mean accidental experiments, of course. The ■idental ignitions in the mine ip. ht have caused a holocaust, z a mine generates 2ft. of gas •j f day. it is a dangerous mine ?

d —Yes, under certain conditions. Might not a small accumulas tion of gas be more dangerous i than a large one ? —Yes. t What quantity of fresh air - would prevent tlie explosion oi - an outburst of gas ? —lt depends ? on the quantity of gas and air admitted, the amount of coal f dust present, and the kind of i lights used. i Is it not a fact that the quantity of pure air going through 1 a mine is immaterial, because an i explosion is sudden and over- ? powering ? I would not say that, f I gather from an authority on i the subject that though a mine i maybe well ventilated yet an I explosion might occur through i blowers or sudden bursts of gas. , Is that the case ? —lt may be. > But why have naked lights ? i Do you think the disaster had any connection with White Island eruption. Only in the vicinity ?—-If in Rotorua there were magazines of gas alongside a volcanic disturbance, those magazines might be fractured and the gas liberated. As to attributing the disaster at Huntly. however, to the White Island blow-up—-that is too far-fetched. THURSDAY. Mr Napier continued his examination of Mr Reed. Witness said the explosives used in Ralph’s mine were not on the British list of permitted explosives. The New Zealand Act did not directly permit the use of these explosives. The inspector of mines, ten days ago, gave the Taupiri Company notice not to use flame-producing explosives. By continuing to use them in the Extended mine, the company was defying that notice. Witness had called attention in his letters to the Under-Secretary to this matter of explosives. He did not think any of the coal mines in the Dominion were using the British-permitted explosives. It was dangerous to use others in mines where there was gas or dangerous coa 1 dust. He did not remember the Department having given notice regarding permitted explosives prior to the disaster. Ca - of burning should be reported, said the witness, and not cm sealed from the Government. A holocaust could occur through the explosion of gas witlu . : the additional element of c<ml di si. After burnings, the part of the mine where they took place should be closed down until a visit had been made by the inspector, because all the e > : units for a disaster would be ■■.'ont. If tlie Act only called f ports of “serious” accidents Department was not bound by ’’the wooden words of an obsolete statute where human lives are concerned. ” A manager was b : by his training, conscience, and The Under-Secretary spoke to witness very seriously about his reports. No complaint had ever been made to the Civil Service Commissioners regarding Mr Bennie. He regarded the latter as a competent, conscientious, and honourable inspector, but would prefer his own opinions to Mr Bennie’s. As he had not been informed of the explosions that had taken place he would not express an opinion as to the condition of the mine before the explosion. It was not his duty to make a complete examination of the mine, and he had not done so. He had never communicated to the Company or to the owners his knowledge of the dangerous conditions prevalent since December, 1913. He addressed all communications to his chief, and even though he had feared a holocaust, and human lives were at stake, he adhered to the Civil Service regulations by communicating with no one. The reports of the inspector had raised doubt in bis mind as to the safety of the mine, and though ho sometimes advised inspectors in a private friendly way he never advised Mr Bennie to withdraw the men. Though he had drawn attention to the main dangers lie had not reported that the fan was inadequate. The fan was one of the lesser dangers, and if the new bill passed “ you shall be pulled up over it. ” His computation after the explosion, was there were 68,000 c. feet of gas in the mine; that of the company’s surveyor, 78,000 c. feet. He did not think No 6. bord was ventilated when lie visited it after the explosion. He would not venture a guess as to whether the amount of gas in the mine before the explosion would not have been enough to blow the shaft ami everything else to pieces. He did not know what force would have been required to blow the whole mines to pieces. When he heard of explosions occurring in the mine he thought that the duties of the management had not been fully carried out. To Mr Tanks : Witness inspected the Taupiri mines three years ago, but did not report upon his inspection. He probably asked the secretary of the company to get the men from the Huntly mines to come up for tests in gas examining at the Auckland Exhibition. Less than thirty presented themselves. Only one man from Ralph’s passed the test. He did not think there was anything in the Act making it necessary to report an accident simply because it was a burning by gas. He did not believe that the report of the manager, Mr Fletcher, of January 14 last, contained all the cases of burning that had occurred in the mine in the previous I wo years, From information received he doubted the truth of t!i report. He had heard there v re burnings that were net pi down in ‘that report. If :.\k Fletcher now said lie did n ! . iow of any ether

cases outside those mentioned in 1- the report, witness would ac- . 3 cept his word. To put accounts of burning in a book was not r sufficient under the Act. A >f malinger should immediately res port such accidents by telegram r to the Department. Not to do d so was concealment. All burning if accidents were, in witness’ opinion, serious. l- Witness reiterated his allegah tion that Mr Fletcher concealed u cases of burning. Can you say that Mr Fletcher t. or anyone else connected with 1 the company Was made ac--3 quainled with your opinion as 1 to the dangerous condition ol 1 Ralph’s mine ? —I do not. know. ;. Did you take steps to make j. them aware of your views? —No. It was not my business. 1 Was the company ever re- - commended to use safety lamps ? I know of no recommendation 1 unless it was a verbal one from f the inspector. In connection with the shaft t pillars in Ralph’s, which you say - are not safe, how did you come 3 to that opinion ? —From the plan 3 of the company’s surveyor and - from my own examination. It is palpable that the pillars are weak. The shaft is not safe. 5 What do you suggest should be done to remedy the danger ? ) I would put up circular stone j pillars to strengthen them. Continuing, witness said the t sample of coal analysed by ProF fessor Dixon was undoubtedly . Taupiri Coal. He did not sug- > gest that the professor analysed , the “ grab ” sample he took out of the hotel coal scuttle. Wit- , ness took his samples out of the . bins at Ralph’s mine. The tests ; of the dust lie took were the first , that had been made. Before that, the fearfully inflammable and dangerous nature of the dust was unknown to everybody, including, of course, the manager. When the disaster took place he thought the whole of his estimate of 60,000 ft of gas was consumed or exploded. The condition of Martin’s body at the point of origin could not be taken as an indication of the quantity of gas which exploded. Were those bords where Martin was found dangerous before the explosion ? —, Yes, gas does not come instantaneously. It is not possible for 68,000 ft. of gas to be given off within an hour? -It it possible in some mines but not, I think, in Ralph’s. The old workings were just the place for gas to accumulate. Does not the fact that men were working there with naked lights prove that there was ventilation there ? —No, it does not. Men can work in stagnant air. The whole of the gaseous zone was devoid of ventilation. I d'» not think this disaster would ha • *ned if you had had a dei ..mi and decent vemiL- 1 tion. Do you not think that- you might have gone further man \ you did in writiting to the Undersecretary of your fears regarding the mine ? —What more could I have done except take a gun to the company ? Do you know if there are any permitted explosives used in the Australasian mines ? Not that I know of. Do you still say, then, that the Taupiri ri Compay, if it is unable to procure permitted explosives in Australia, ought to close the Extended mine because of the explosives used there? Yes; and if 1 had the power I would dose the mine to-morrow, because you are risking the lives of your men in it. A blow out shot amongst that dust would create another holocaust. I think the company ought to be ashamed of itself for carrying on work, and for using flame producing explosives in defiance of the inspector’s orders. Did not the inspector tell the manager that monobel was a permitted explosive ?—Yes ; but some officials had hoodwinked the inspector by telling him that monobel was a permitted explosive. As a matter of fact monobel without the numeral is not. Are you quite sure that a represetative of the company hoodwinked the inspector Mr Bennie? —Yes. Mr Bennie told me the name of the man. And because of that you regard it as a fact? Yes 1 do. 1 would believe Mr Bennie before I would believe you or any other representative of the company. When the commissioned resumed in the evening, Mr Tunks continued his examination of Mr Reed. Witness said that as far as he knew blasting powder was being used in the State coal mine at Point Elizabeth. Since the Huntly disaster the inspectors was “ in full cry ” regarding the use of permitted explosives in coal mines. Tests of coal dust from all New Zealand mines were being made, and steps would be taken in accordance with those tests. Monobel, a prohibited explosive in Great Britain, was being dumped out to the Overseas Dominions. The Taupiri Company was purchasing these “ dumped explosives” to carry on the work in its mines. He alleged thal two officials, whom he naim d, had induced the inspector, under a misapprehension, to to add monobel to his list of permitted explosives. Asked if ho would advocate the closing down of all the mines in New Zealand until permitted explosives could be obtained, j witness replied that all the j Dominion mines were not dusty. If human lives were in danger, however, he would close down every mine in the country. He knew that monobel was being used in New Zealand in addition to blasting powder and gelignite. In reply t - a further query from Mr Tunks, witness said : “ If I were the i lining inspector

i for this district, I would close - down the Taupiri mines until 3 the company obtained safe t explosives. 1 would prefer to l save miners’ lives than to make - profits for the company.” l You make an offensive —a par- ) ticularly offensive —reference to >• the profits of the company. Why ’ do you do so? —Because 1 consider it necessary to speak out. - It is necessary, I consider, in 1 the interests of truth and justice. In reply to further questions, : witness said he adhered to his l belief that the manager, Mr - Fletcher, concealed two cases of 3 burning by gas. t Mr Tunks: Where has the company avoided attending to 3 ventilation as you have alleged ? . both at the inquest and here you have not alluded to it, and it was - most important. It was the ac- ? cumulation of gases in yDur i mine that killed those men. i Why should the manager refer to ventilation, if he considered it to be adequate ? —Because this is an impartial inquiry. You ; solicitors have been examining i me upon nearly all the clauses I in the Act, but you have taken ; jolly good care never to ask me a question about ventilation. Have I, as the company’s . solicitor, had a previous 1 opportunity of examining you on the point ? —No. I Withdraw the remark so far as you are concerned. Mr. Tunks: The company is not guilty of that charge, then. Do you admit that the dus t problem is a very difficult one to deal with? — I do, indeed. lam not prepared to make a pronouncement on it without lengthy consideration. Then the manager could not be expected to make a pronouncement on tlie subject ? —No, but I hope he will be getting to work on it quickly. Robert Gumming was called by Mr Wilford, and deposed that he had been burned when working in Ralph’s five years ago. FRIDAY. At the morning’s sitting Mr Mr Wilford asked leave to call witnesses to speak to cases of alleged victimisation by the Company. He proposed to show that indifferent men had been appointed to responsible positions, and the evidence, besides lending value to the report, would enable the Government to introduce remedial legislation. Mr Tunks and Mr Newton having opposed the application, the chairman ruled that the evidence must be refused as it did not come within the scope of the commission. If victimisation had him prevalent, a separate commission, he thoughi. >h mid He set up to investigate the matter as far as it concerned the i coal miners of New Zealand c onpleted in next week’s issue] j