Huntly Disaster.

Huntly Press and District Gazette, Volume 3, 30 October 1914, Page 3

Huntly Disaster.

ROYAL COMMISSION. The Royal Commission appointed to inquire into the mining'disaster, which occurred on September 12th, resumed its sittings in Wellington on the morning of the 22nd inst. The commissioners present were Messrs F. J. Burgess, S.M., (chairman), J. Brown and J. Dowgray, Mr C. J. Tunks appearing for the Taupiri Company, and Mr T. M. Wilford for the Miners of New Zealand and for several of the widows of the victims.

Percy Gates Williams, directors of the geological survey of New Zealand, stated in evidence that he had visited the scene of the disaster on September 29, and again on October 22. In the main haulage road the evidences of the explosion consisted of broken skips, timber marked by small pieces of coal and stone, falls of the roof, etc. At one place an opening 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 eorTcerning the degree of violence, but on the whole it seemed to him that the explosion was not so violent as might have been expected. The facts that in places the haulage road was wet. and that one portion wai driven through the shaly clay underlying the coal would help to explain this. At the old fall in No. 5 bord fire-damp was present on the occasion of both visits, but on October 2, owing to the bratticing, a good current of air was passing. The inference was that fire-damp was being emitted in considerable quantity from the roof of the fall. In the adjoining bord, No. 6, Martin's body was found, witness being present when Martin’s coat was picked up by Mr Alex. Penman. He concurred in the opinions expressed to the effect that there was an accumulation of firedamp in No. 5 bord previous to the disaster ; that this, mixed with air, had been ignited by Martin ; and that the resulting gas explosion was continued as a coal dust explosion to the haulage road, whence it passed No. 6 cabin in one direction and to the top of the main shaft in the other. It was impossible to determine the quantity of gaseous mixture ignited ; but if Martin ignited the fire-damp at the point where his body was discovered, there must have a large amount present. Martin's injuries were more consistent with the conjecture that he was hurled a chain or so than with the opinion that he was struck down where he stood. The appearance of the originating centre of the explosion in- . dicated that at this point the ex- ; plosion was not intensely violent, and that the amount of methane present was not large, i The fact that there was a very i large accumulation of gas in 1

No. 5. section six days after the explosion showed that the mine was “gassy” or “fiery,” and hence the use of safety lamps was absolutely necessary at the present time. Bords4,s,and 6 were on or near the summit of a small dome or short anticline, a. structure known to all with oil field experience as favouring the accumulation of gas in the strata. It was, therefore, probable that the strata immediately over these bords contained a large amount of gas under pressure, and that this was liberated previous to and after the explosion by cracks or fissures communicating with the fall at No 5 bord. Whether this view was correct or not for

the particular case under consideration, it was evidence that any similar domes or anticlines in the Waikato coal mines ought to be regarded as potentially dangerous, unless the contrary was proved. Witness said that the suggestion had been made that the Huntly disaster was connected with the eruption at White Island. 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. The following suggestions for the prevention of similar disasters for the most part did not cover any fresh ground : —(a) Strict and frequent inspection of old or partly abandoned workings, (b) increased ventilation, (c) watering dusty roads and places, (d) use of inert dust (as a dilutent of explosive dust), (e) use of safety lamps, oil or electric. He would further advocate experimental tests of coal dusts from all New Zealand mines; frequent analysis of mine air, especially returns ; one or more rescue apparatus stations ; increased opportunity of technical education for all classes of miners. To Mr Wilford: At the point where Martin met his death there might have been 400 ft of firedampor more. Except from outside knowledge he knew nothing about the use of explosives, nor did he know that from British statistics three accidents from the use of monobel had occurred during 1912. There was no absolutely safe explosive.

To Mr Dowgray : When he stated that no explosive was absolutely safe he was not speaking as an authority. It was a matter of common knowledge. To Mr Tanks: He was not aware that about 23 million shots had been fired with monobel and 1 that only three accidents had oc- ' curred, and did not know that, j

although monobel had been tali en off the “permitted” list, it use was allowed for 12 month afterwards. To Mr Wilford : He would no like to be responibie for tin - working of the Taupiri mine e with other than safety lamps 1 The use of a safety lamp woulc s probably have saved Martin’s 3 life. Safety lamps if carrier 3 carelessly might cause an ex 3 plosion. Humanly speaking , there would have been no explo . sion had Martin had a safety - lamp and used it intelligently. Mr Tunks: You are not pre- :■ pared to say that it was impos--1 sible for a fall to have taken place 3 and for an emission of gas to have occurred within an hour - before the accident ? —No, I would not say that. It is net ! impossible, but the odds are " against it. You cannot say that the mine was “ gassy ” or “ fiery ” [before the explosion ? —I know nothing about the state of the mine before the explosion. Would not very slight seismic tremors be sufficient to liberate the gas?—The fall might have been thus caused, but I do not think so. What would cause the fall? — The weight of the strata above. You admit that the disaster at White Island and that at Huntly must have been almost coincident in date? —Yes, they were probably within two days or 30 hours of each other. The Chairman: Would any sudden changes in the barometer have any effect ? —Yes, it would have a certain influence. Mr Wilford : Are you aware that during the recent exposure in the House of Commons by Mr Philip Snowden, it was shown that 76 of the shareholders in Nobel’s were Germans, and that amongst the shareholders were three German banks and five German army officers ? —I do not know, but I know that there are many German shareholders. The Chairman: What do you gather from that? Mr Wilford, laughing: Oh, I want someone else to gather something from it. (Laughter.) Mr Tunks read the following telegram from Mr J. Fletcher, mine manager : “ Deputy McGill says that Gowau, under-mana-ger, travelled from Bond’s Dip to the section whero Martin was found, on Friday, “ the day previous to the accident. I am posting a letter." Counsel had telegraphed for McGill to come to Wellington, and he commission not to close its sittings until McGill’s arrival. Mr Wilford : Th is is a most ex- i traordinary applic ition, and one which I ask the commission to consider bef. re acceding to. Here is a mine deputy, whom it is proposed to call to prove that a particular part of the mine—where Martin met his death — was traversed on the day before the explosion by a man who is dead. The inquest was sitting at Huntly for some days, and the commission also sat there for eight days, right alongside the mine. The Taupiri mine people knew that any proof of the route in question having been traversed just prior to the explosion would not only be of importance, but of the utmost value. A fortnight has elapsed since the commission concluded its labours in Huntly, and now suddenly comes a telegram stating that a man -who has hitherto remained silent on the subject—can make this statement, and the commission must look upon it with grave doubt. Here we have a man who is employed in the mine coming to tell us something that a dead man told him. If the Taupiri Company is allowed to do that it is a very serious thing, so far as the miners are concerned, and I ask the commission to carefully consider the application. After consultation the commissioners agreed to take the evidence of deputy McGill who in reply to Mr Tunks stated that during the week prior to the accident he received instructions to get same rails out. He did not know for certain whether anyone was told off to get them out on the Saturday. He last saw Mr Gowan at half-past three o’clock on Friday afternoon—the day before the disaster —when he asked witness if he could spare two men to get some rails out. Mr Gowan was carrying an ordinary acetylene lamp. Mr Tunks : If the rails had been got out during the week while you were in charge would you have considered it necessary to have made an examination of that part of the mine. Witness: Yes. It was part of my duty to do so. I am of opinion that Smith was on his way to do so when the explosion occurred. He could have had no other object in going the way he did. Mr Wilford : Are you of opinion that Martin got into No. 5 bord before Smith had time to make an inspection ? —Yes. He got ahead of Smith. There is no question about that. Was it part of Smith’s duty that morning to make an inspection prior to the workmen going in? Yes, or tell his deputy to do so. Then he failed to make the inspection before the men went in? —Well, he allowed Marlin to gat ahead of him. Do you know whether Smith _ha\i a safety lamp ? —I canot say. jYe have not cleaned up that Portion of the mine yet. Are you clearly of opinion it 1 iaJt Smith could not have got /ahead of Martin?—Y.s, 1 am jquite certain about that, i Witness stated in answer to Mr Wilford, that the door opening into No. 0 bord in which Martin’s body was found had no

l- lock on it. He did not know th s reason. He had nothing to di s with that matter. He was no asked any question at the in t quest on the subject of whicl e he had just spoken. He was o s opinion that Martin went in tc i. get rails on the morning of tin 1 disaster. He had not made anj ■j statement regarding the story 1 he had just told until Wednesday - last, when he made it knowr , to Mr Fletcher. Mr Wilford: If the door hac r been locked Martin could not have been killed. Is that not - so ? —Yes, that is so. In reply to Mr Tunks, witness 5 said that the door existed foi • about six months, and that it had ■ been used regularly in connection with the movement of rails and other material. Mr Wilford : Have you ever seen gas in Ralph’s mine ? —Yes, it was my-duly to clear it away. How many times have you cleared it away from the old worings ? Five times. I do not know of any occasion of seeing gas beyond these five times. The gas appeared to have been due to “bleeding ” after falls. Have you ever seen gas in the face when the men were at work ? —No. How many times did you know of men being burned in Ralph’s mine? —Only once, shortly before the explosion. „ MrTonks: To whom did you make your first statement of the evidence that you afterwards gave to the inquest ? —To the police. Did you see me before the inquest, or at all prior to to day ? —No. Before the inquiry was closed Mr Dowgray asked permission to put in some official reports of inspections of the mine in vie by Inspector Bennie which ho (Mr Dowgray) had obtained from the Department. Mr Tonks said that these reports should have been put in when Inspector Bennie gave his evidence, so that he could have been cross-examined in regard to them. The Chairmen : I do not think vve can exclude these reports. At the same time, it would have been better if they had been put in before. In one of the reports which was written by Inspector Bennie on August 4th of this year it was stated that gas had been found in various parts of the mine. It had been found, the report stated, on July Ist, in Nos. 1,4, and I 5 bords of No. 5 section, but it had been cleaned up and made quice safe on the same day. Firedamp was found in the old and new workings. The report also stated that gas was found in the old and new workings. The report also stated that gas was found on July 2nd. in No. 7 level on the south side of the old working, on the north side of the main haulage ro acf, as well as in the winch level of the old workings This being all the evidence, the chairman declared the inquiry closed, and said that the commission would now prepare its report.