OFFICIAL INQUIRY.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, 23 October 1914, Page 3

OFFICIAL INQUIRY.

WORK OF COMMISSION. CONCLUSION OF EVIDENCE To Mr Wilford: Albert Jenkins 5 stated that as he and Wm. J Dennis returned after crib to No. . 7 North where they were driving f a heading to No. 5 his mate went , np to the coal fac- He had a , naked light on his head and it ' ignited the accumulated gas, I burning his head and hair. Wit- ; ness rubbed the face with oil, \ and Dennis was able to continue . his work. This occurred two I years ago while Mr Fletcher was manager. , To Mr Tunks : They were driving a heading to No. 5 between the little dip and No. 7 north. ; He was working in the heading when a fault was struck. He did not know where Dennis was now. He was not*certain that it was in Mr Fletcher’s time. David Molesworth, junr., had worked for 15 years in Ralph’s mine, and had been vice-presi-dent of the former union. His term of office had run out, and he did not seek re-election. When working in Ralph's with Robert Neal an ignition of gas took place in No. 7 north, about 3 years ago, Mr Fletcher being manager. When Neal got to the face, he lifted the light to his head, and the gas in the roof ignited, the flame coming within a yard of witness’ face. The flame was about 10 yards long. Neal’s hair and moustache were singed and his face severely scorched. They reported the matter to Wear when they asked to send for deputy Darby. With Wear Darby came back. The latter had a safety lamp. A little dispute occurred. Witness asked Darby if he had reported the ignition. He replied that the place had been examined, and that no gas had been found when he examined i it, the date of the inspection having been, as he saw, chalked on the face. Thete was undoubtedly gas at the height of ; his mate. To Mr Tunks; This happened, 3 he thought, 314 or 4 years ago. 1 He and his mate lost no time 1 over the matter. They were driving a heading from No 5 to i No 7 North. The place was < bratticed, and no more trouble i was experienced. To Mr Dowgray : He had seen gas before in the cutting several ! times, and especially after a 1 spell. 1 To Mr Brown : The brattice > would have been about -20yds t back from the face. Wear re- i marked that they were short 1 of brattice at the time. ' James Fulton, farm labourer, c and formerly a miner of 27 years £ experience, had been a check inspector. He had worked in c Ralph’s mine for 7 years, in the 1 Extended for 2 years, and under t Mr Fletcher for ab ut 2 years, f On one occasion while working ' in a heading in the little dip c after going back from lunch, I John Skellern, shot-firer, came r in, and preceded them to the face. On going into the cutting I he ignited gas. In No 3 for c the best part of a quarter be and c his mate could scarcely ever get r to the face until the gas had been i got out. Wm. Smith was the r deputy and Frank Raynor was r 3 his mate. They had to sit down I morning after morning until the 6 place had been cleared. The r general width of the travel ting t road, about 14 feet, was dusty, c They were watered occasionally t on the centre for about 2or 3 1 feet, the sides being left dry. i He had seen examples of heating, and to one in particular ' he had drawn the attention of ( the late Wm. Evans. ' To Mr Tunks; If proper aitau- t tion had not been given the gas s would have accumulated in i dangerous quantities. They had 1 lost time, and had not been re- ' imbursed. This did not happen i in Mr Fletcher’s time. It was i two years since he had worked in Ralph’s mine. Wm. Smith i was deputy when he encountered i the hot coal, Evans being under- I manager. To Mr Newton : Off and on he ] had been check inspector for 12 months. He did not agree with . the system, and it, had not been i customary to make periodical inspections. He had no special qualifications, and thought a man should pass a simple - examination before he took the - I job on. j To Mr Macassey : He had I never compla- ,rd to Mr Bennie personally. Thu report was put !in the hoc . here Mr Bennie l could see it To Mr Biown; He made a true and faithful report of the conditions as hf Jbund them. Edward S. \VVh.t, a former manager of the mine, stated that he had opposed a suggestion to sink an extra shaft on the west side of the river. ,He did not consider his attitude was wrong. It was by means ol the additional shaft that eleven men escaped on the day of the disaster. To Mr Tunks: Witness did not consider there was evidence of the weakening of the.shaft pilj lars in Ralph’s. He nad never I tested coal dust, and did not I know it was so highly explosive, j To Mr Napier: The mine, in I comparison with English mines, I was fairly free from dust. To Mr Dowgray: A mine manager usually lied a very keen conscience. Frederick Knapper said he thought check inspectors should be appointed by the men and paid by tho Government. In reply to Mr Napier, he said he understood some of the check inspectors had appointed themselves. They were not indepen.--dent officials while they remained in the company’s employ.

Dr, J. C. Macdiarmid replying io Mr Tanks; after his evidence given at the coreniai inquest, had been read, Said > — l 1 Kelly had burns on lmad, > face upper part of thorax, . and other parts. He hdd visited . hi ttl onsor 6 occasions at his ; house. He was off work from ; July 9th to 24th. Kelly’s burns , were of the first and second de- , gree. Two bodies, that of Allen and that numbered 31 had been practically decapitated and they must have been subjected to tremendous force. Martin’s received multiple fractures, and was struck with great force, but.,, not so great as that which struck the bodies numbered 30 and 31. A burn of the first degree was not a serious matter. Kelly went without his permission to the dog show, but he did not not know that lie suffered from being out. He saw Kelly immediately lie arrived at his home. As a rule a man unable to follow his occupation was given a certificate. If not satisfied with his own observation the manager could obtain all information from him. Every injury caused by gas ignition he considered to be serious. Both accidents were occasioned by gas. To Mr Brown : An accident involving risk to life he would consider a serious accident. A fractured limb or an accident involving the use of a limb he would consider serious. To Mr Napier: Burns of hands and face caused by other than gas, similar in size and character, were not as dangerous or burns due to gas, minute portions of carbon being forced into the skin with explosive violence. Boyd Bennie, inspector of mines, recalled by Mr Macassey, said that only one serious burning accident in Ralph’s mine 1 had been reported to him and none in the Extended mine. On two occasions he had found a 1 gaseous mixture of about 6 per ' cent, in the old workings. Wit- ( ness did not know of Mr Frank ; Reed’s letters to the Under- 1 Secretary. He had had a con- ■ versation with Mr Reed, but * preferred his own opinion to that of the inspecting engineer. I Owing to his intimate know- j ( ledge of the mine he acted on ! I his own opinions, not being ( authorised to take instructions ' from Mr Reed. I His brother-in-law worked in Ralph’s mine, and in the ab- c sence of an official, acted for 1 him. Witness was then in a *■ position to obtain confidential ‘ information. Had he thought c the mine dangerous he would 2 have advised Holden according- 1 ly. All that Holden told him c was that the shot-firing was not e carried out as lie (the witness) and the manager anticipated. 1 Continuing, witness said he t considered the ventilation of Ralph’s mine effective. At the f place where Martin’s body was 2 found witness considered there would be about 2000 cubic feet 2 of gaseous mixture. He had full J power to call the men out of the c mine. To Mr Napier : Witness never c looked upon the mine as being f dangerous within the meaning 1 of the Act. He would not recoin- 1 mend the use of the electric lamp with which Mr Reed de- 1 monstrated to him at the Thames. Mr Reed did not ap- t pear to be very anxious re- l garding Ralph’s mine, and did c not indicate to witness that he thought there was imminent 2 danger of a holocaust. If he had 1 done so witness would at once 1 have ordered the men out of the r mine. \ In further reply to questions, • 1 witness said the company’s de- I e cision to instal a bigger fan s was voluntary. He considered '■ the Extended mine to be tlie * safest in his district and Ralph’s 1 next. Since Christmas, 1913, Mr ' Reed had not officially conferred ' with witness regarding Ralph’s I mine, nor had he suggested the * making of a coal dust test. 1 To Mr Newton : Witness ap- 2 plied to the present union for * information, about burnings, but l they did not give it to him. He ' thought that he applied to the 1 president, Mr Stewart Dixon, but 1 was not positive. If the Union * said that no application was made he would not deny it. 1 To Mr Tunks : Witness would 1 not say that he had been de- 1 ceived as to monobel. He un- ' derstood it was a “permitted” explosive. Had you any evidence that Mu- Fletcher was deliberately 1 concealing cases of burning from you ? —No. He freely and frankly gave me the particulars. In your opinion could there have been a. sudden inrush of gas in sufficient quantity to havecaused the explosion ? —Yes. To Mr Wilford: You considered Ralph’s a safe mine with your many years’ experience ? Yes. Yet it blew up? Yes, but so have others. Do you know that Mr Reed predicted a: catastrophe in his letters to the Under-Secretary ? From the files produced I now know he did so. Did you know prior to the disaster that Mr Reed had written six times to the Undersecretary regarding Ralph’s, and that in four of these letters he predicted the disaster ? —No. Do you realise that if Mr Fletcher is found to have failed to’carry out the lav/, >ou are also to blame ? -No. If a policeman finds a man drunk is he to blame for the man being drunk? When you go to inspect a mine do you send a telegram saying you are going? Once or twice I have d m so. M iford: So I heard. Wi -ss: I did so when there ..-hail accidents. T .4 '■ r Dowgray: In his inpe- ' ia of Ralph’s mine this

y year he had found gas in the 3 old workings tbrefe times. That was to say that on each visit - he discovered gas in some places; , Jas Fle'tc'hef, nlinle manager, 1 recalled by Mr Trunks, said that ? he was never in any way ac- \ quainted with Mr Reed’s opinions ; | concerning the mine. Witness had no knowledge of burning accidents other than those he had reported. He considered the shaft pillars to be quite safe. Witness described the qualifications of his underviewers, deputies, and ‘"other responsible g officials. He considered them ■ competent gas testers. Some of the deputies had held responsible positions in Home collieries. For two years witness took an interest in the men and tried to better their positions by giving lectures for their benefit. After that, the School of Mines was established in Huntly. Witness did not admit that the porlion of the mine where the explosion originated was not sufficiently ventilated. He never apprehended an accumulation of gas there. The proposal in the Mines Act Amendment Bill, that in future mining inspectors be required to pass a higher examination test than colliery managers, had his approval. He j hoped that the provision would | be enforced. To Mr Napier : There was nothing in the present Act to compel the company to employ special officers to inspect the old workings. Two such officers were appointed by the company on his recommendation. The ignition of a small quantity of gas would not cause an explosion of dust, consequently he did not consider that such small ignitions were calculated to cause a holocaust. To Mr Macassey: If a res- : ponsible inspector ordered the men out of a mine a; being a dangerous mine, witness would 1 obey the order first and appeal afterwards. Under clause 58 of the Act the inspector could do this, and consequently controlled the safety of the miners. To Mr Wilford: Under the provisions of the Act witness ought to have kept the door j between Nos. 5 am! 5 bords locked. He did not th,* this. Some < witnesses had si.tiud that Martin < passed through that door. i The Chairman. What means 1 of escape are A ided in the t mine?--There are three shafts, ] two of which are downcasts i about a mile apart. In the up- 1 cast shaft there we re ladders, 1 and, of course, there were cages \ in the others. If th ?se three s •openings to the mine wore block- 1 ed, no one would get out. 1 That is a contingency unlikely i to occur, I suppose ? I hope that i this is an unlikely contingency, t To Mr Dowgray : One shot was t fired in the Taupiri West section e about three days ago. z This concluded tlie hearing of \ evidence. The commission ad- i journed until the evening, when i t counsel’s addresses were heard. | 1 Mr Napier first addressed the j i commission, taking the line that ! t the mine was a safe one and { 1 that it had generally been looked t upon as such for years past, t The mine had been worked j under the most approved con-' ± ditions. He also devoted atten- j s tion to the statements of Mr J t Frank Reed whose judgment he i 1 condemned. I 1 Mr Tunks followed with an ( address designed to show that neither the company nor the 1 manager had in any way been > responsible for the accident and f had taken all possible precautions \ for the safety of the men I employed. He asked the commis- } sioners to consider the theory, j that the disaster and the erup- c tion at White Island were con- \ nected. Referring to Mr Reed’s j statements Mr Tunks asked why, i if the latter held the convictions i lie said lie did, he did not move heaven and earth to have matters put right? Why did he not have a question asked in the House ? A more aggressive attitude on his part might have saved those lives. The manager thought the mine was safe and counsel submitted that he was justified in that belief. < Mr Macassey’s address was mainly confined to arguing that the duties of the inspector of mines had been adequately carried out. Ho had seen that the rules and regulations under the Act were complied with. It was not his duty to instruct the company how they should carry I on operations. Mr Newton defended the union against the suggestion that it had refused to help the inspector and submitted that the mine was not considered to be dangerous. Mr Wilford referred to the previous speakers as apologists for the company, who had united in an effort to whitewash everybody from everything. According to them, no one was to blame and to suggest blame was almost heresy. He claimed that a naked light caused the disaster, and that the latter could have been prevented. Counsel alleged that the case bristled with clearly proved instances of recklessness and negligence. Amongst them was the persistent use of naked lights, the non-provision of ladders so that high bords could be examined for gas, the non-lock-ing of the door leading to No. 6 hard, and the allegedly inadequ- j ate ventilation of the old work- j ings. The death of the victims of the disaster was, Mr Wilfor i contended, caused by the fact, that No. 6 bord, where Martin ( went on that morning, had not ] heen previously inspected for gas. | In all, Mr Wilford tabulated 14; charges against the company. The chairman announced that ! the proceedings, so far as the ; Huntly sitting -was concerned, 1 were now'closed. The com mi !

e I sion would however, reassemble, t in case anyone else wished to e tender evidence, in Wellington, ; J on October 22, until which date the inquiry was adjourned.