Huntly Enquiry

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 116, 9 October 1914, Page 8

Huntly Enquiry

TILE INSPI&.TiN'vi ENGINEER'S STORY.

THE MAN WHO PREDICTED THE EXPLOSION.

By Telegraph—Per Press Association. Auckland, Last Night.

When the Huntiy mining disaster enquiry was resumed this morning, Pram; Kii'u, Engineer of Milled, was subjected to further cross-examination. Replying to Mr. Napier, the witness said that tihe explosives used' in Ralph's nine were not permitted as safe explosives under the English Act. Are the explosives used in this mine the explosives contmnplated in the existing Coal Mines Act?— That is absolutely an absurd Act, You miji cast obloquy and ridicule 011 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 llame 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 liherc. At the present time, with the e.w\j>tion of the Kaitangata mine, arc any 0 tihe mines in New Zealand using jlig lish-permitted explosives?—l don't think that, oven tile Kaitnngata is. Do you consider it dangerous to use other than these explosives?— Yea, where there is gas or dangerous coal dust. Seeing that you visited the mine, and .considered a holocaust probable, did you ailow the whole of the year since .January 1 to elapse without indicating to the owners what you thought?—Jt was not my duty to communicate wit'i» the owners then.

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

Even though you thought human lives wore 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, 1 had, as the results of reports of the inspector. Did you sometimes advise the inspector?— Sometimes I went out of my way to adviso him privately. Is it not strange, then, that you did not advise him to have the men withdrawn from places you considered dangerous?—l only advised him as I thought it was wise to do.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 the Taupiri mini's?— 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 manager reasonably have considered that rtfwas not his duty to test the coal dust?—l think ho inigirt 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?—l will not venture ■a guess at that. Would you deny that if your estimate is accurate, the amount of gas whiclit was probably before the explosion must have approximated three million horse-power? —I cannot say. I take it you do not know what ioree would "have been necessary to blow the whole mine to pieces?— No. I)o 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.