THE EVENING MAIL. TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1877.

Oamaru Mail, Volume I, Issue 324, 8 May 1877, Page 2

THE EVENING MAIL.

TUESDAY, MAY 8, 1877.

" Wnnls are things, ami a <!ro;i of ink falling upon a thought liuiv thm which uuiUcs thousand lUi-'tK."

Thc fatal accident which occured on tlae Rakaia railway on V\ ednesday last, and which resulted in the death of the enginedriver, Ric'Haiid Di:ury, is a matter that calls for the fullest inquiry. That someone is to blame for the occurrence of the sail affair, nu one, we think, will deny after reading the particulars published by us on Saturday. To whom the blame is attachable cannot at present be said, as it would bo manifestly unjust to point to any single individual. When reading the report of the accident no cioubt many would at once arrive at the conclusion that the gatekeeper was the guilty party ; but such does not altogether appear to be the fact, if we are to believe the evidence given by him at the inquest. According to statements made by others it would also appear that the gate-keeper was not wholly at fa'.ilt; in fact, while it is perfectly clear that some person lias been guilty of criminal negligence in the matter, nothing of a suiiieieiitly definite nature seems to have been elicited at tue Coroner's inquest to iix t;ie blame upon ar.v - particular individual. The result of the ini'iuest is as unsatisfactory as it well could be, and renders further inquiry absolutely necessary. To our thinking the Coroner lias been guilty of a very great dereliction of duty in not pushing the incuiry to the utmost extent, and finding out who it was that had been guilty of neglect. As is pointed out b} r the Christelmrch Sicir, the inquiry was as to how Drury came by his death, and what criminal negligence was attributable to any one, the gatekeeper or another. This face seems to Lave been entirely ignored by the Coroner, who appears to have looked upon the inquiry as one nierelto asc- rt-un whether or not one particular person had been guilty oi a lastly of duty. This was a most unjust and unreasonable view of the case, and the manner in which the Coroner charged the jury i:-; a monstrously unfair one, and manifested the presencj of a foregone conclusion. Circumstances which arose during the inquiry should have led him to pursue a diii'erent course to that which he adopted. "VVe are not saying this much in order to assist the gatebeeper out of the unpleasant position into which he has been thrown ; we are merely actuated by n, desire to see the blame fixed beyond doubt upon the right person, be he the gate-keeper or be he anyone else. Criminal neglect there has unquestionably been somewhere, and the interests of the public demand tiiai the guilty party should be discovered and punished. It was the duty ox the Coroner to have so conducted the inquiry as to have obtained the fullest information with reference to the fatal accident, which undoubtedly arose from gross carelessness on the pari; of some railway .official. Who that oincial one is, it was for the Coroner to ascertain, and in failing to do so, he has shown either an amount of unpardonable ignorance of his duties, or a desire to treat the matter in so trifling a manner as to reiicler himself unfit to hold so responsible a position as that of Coroner. Instead 01 charging the jury, as he did, to consider whether or not the gate-keeper was to blame, he should undoubtedly have insisted upon such evidence being brought

forward as would have fixed beyond doubt the blame upon the right party. He was not called upon merely to inquire whether or the gate-keeper had been guilty of negligence, but to inquire fully into the matter, and enable a decision to be arrived at as to whose neglect had been the cause of the accident. More especially should he not have been contented to let the inquiry stop where it did, seeing that he had before him evidence which might have afforded a clue to the whole matter. Glancing at the evidence given by Mr. Owen, the Out-door Inspector of Traffic, who was on the engine with deceased, we find the following : "I produce the regulations which show that the gates should be opened five minutes before the approach of a train. This was a pilot train. The gate-keeper knew of-its coming, and should have had the gate open to allow it to pass." According to this, it would unquestionably appear that the gate-keeper alone was to blame ; but, when we peruse the evidence of the same witness a little further, we find a statement which might show that the unfortunate man who lost iiis life was not altogether blameless. Mr. Owen, in reply to the Jury, said : "We saw no light at the gate, and therefore assumed the gates were closed ; a white light would have indicated the line clear. The absence of a light would have teen a reason for stopping, but the gate-keeper would have had ample time to open the gate if he had heard the whistle as soon as it was blown. I had no control over the driver, excepting as to stoppages at stations, and the disposal of the load." Then, again, in answer to Mr. O'JKeill, the same witness said: " I do not know whether the train which preceded us had two tail-lights. Such lights would have indicated a special and advised train to follow." In reference to these tail-lights the gate-keeper said : " When the ordinary train passed I looked for the additional red light, showing a train to follow.

As there was only one tail lamp, I thought it (the pilot train) would not return that night." This statement lie follows up with another, which appears to have been altogether unnoticed by the Coroner. "I never before knew a goods tram to pass at night," said the witness, " without the previous ordinary train carrying the two li'thts." From these statements of Mr. Owf.n and the gate-keeper it will be seen that the blame might be placed upon others than the gate-keeper. "Whether it is a strictly laid down rule that the ordinary train should burn an additional tail-light to show that a special and advised train was to follow, we cannot say. Be it as it may, however, the evidence adduced shows that it is the invariable practice, and that this practice had been neglected on the occasion in question, and that, in consequence of this neglect, the accident had occurred. It cannot be said that the guard of the train which pr.-coded that on which the accident occurred was to blame for not showing the additional light, f>r it was not shown that he had ivcjived any intimation of a special train to follow. As we have already said, the inquiry held by the Coroner is unsatisfactory to the last degree, and only goes to still further prove the urgesicy for some alteration m the present Coroner's inquest system. So much evidence of criminal negligence on the part of some one has been elicited as to necessitate the holding of a further inquiry : indeed, a more rigorous investigation is imperatively demanded, and any neglect to still further inquire into the matter will bring about anything but desirable results. If accidents of so serious a nature as that which occurred last weik on the Rakaia line are allowed to pass by unnoticed, beyond the mere holding of an unsatisfactory Coroner's inquest, public couvldence in the safety of the Colonial railways will speedily vanish.