THE HUNTLY EXPLOSION.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXX, Issue 45, 9 October 1914, Page 4

THE HUNTLY EXPLOSION.

CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE INSPECTING ENGINEER. IPIB FBEBt AMOOXJITION.I Auckland, October 8. When the Huntly mining disaster enquiry was resumed this morning, Frank Reed, inspecting engineer of mines, was subjected to > further crossexamination. Replying to Mr Napier, the witness said that the explosives used ia Ralph's mine wore not permitted as safe explosives under the English Act. . Are the explosives used in this mine the explosives contemplated in the existing Coal Mine*, Act?—That is absolutely an r absurd Act. You may cast obloquy and ridicule on the laws of the land, but does the Act permit the use of these explosives —Not directly. Ten days ago the Inspector of Mines gave you notice not to use the flame system of producing explosives, and you are defying that notice by continuing to use these explosives in the Extended mine. There have been two burning accidents there.

At the present time, with the exception of the Kaitangata mine, are any of the mines in New Zealand using English-permitted explosives ?—I don't think that even the Kaitangata is. Do you consider it dangerous to use other than these explosives ?—Yes, where there is gas or dangerous coal dust.

Seeing that you visited the mine, and considered a holocaust probable, did you allow the whole of the year since January 1 to elapse without indicating to the owners what yoa thought?—lt was not my duty to communicate witli the owners then.

Because it was not your duty you did not do so?—No.

Even though you thought human lives were at stake?—l adhered to the regulations of the civil service. When you wrote your letter to the Under-Secretary regarding Ralph's mine, did you have reasonable ground for apprehending danger ?—Yes, I had, as the results of reports of the in-

spector. Did you sometimes advise the inspector ?—Sometimes 1 went out of my way to advise him privately. Is it not strange, then, that you did not advise him to have the men withdrawn from places you considered 'dangerous ?—I only advised him as I thought it was wise to do. Did you ever consider it to be your duty, or the duty of the Mines Department, to test inflammability of dust in theTaupiri mines?—From the information we possessed at the time I did not regard it as our duty. From the knowledge we have now it would have*, been wise to have done so.

Could the raauager reasonably have considered that it was not his duty to test the coal dust?—l think he might have considered it unnecessary. Supposing there had been as much gas in the mine before the explosion as you estimate, would there not have been sufficient to blow the shaft and everything else to pieces —-I will not venture a guess at that. •"*"_ Would you deny that if your es*mate is accurate, the amount of gas which was probably before the explosion must have approximated throe million horse-power?—l cannot eay. I take it you do not know what force would have been necessary to blow the whole mine to pieces?—No. Do you say it was a cause of 'fear with you that the men all round were inexperienced with regard to gases.— Yes.

Did you report that to the Department ?—No; I merely regarded it as a contributory cause of danger.