61

a—c

165. The ventilation you say was good ?—Fair ; with the exception of the two places I have mentioned. 166. Mr. Joyce.] Have you formed any opinions as to how the explosion occurred?—l am not a good theorist. 167. Do you believe the explosion occurred as the result of the blown-out shot?— There are strong indications of fire having been at the blown-out shot, but the indications below the shot would imply that the explosion was below that. 168. At the time of the explosion, could the mine have been worked lower down than the place you made your examination at ? —I believe the water was in over the level of the coal before we went there. 169. Did you particularly notice that prop which was standing near the blown-out shot ?—Yes. 170. Was there any indication there of the force of the blast ?—Yes. 171. Did it look as if it came up the slit or had gone down ? —lt looked as if it went up the slit, and rebounded off this comer —half going up one slit and half up the other. My opinion is that the force was going up. 172. Did you make an examination of Hunter and Denniston's bord ? —Yes. 173. Is there any sign of fire at the end of that bord, as if the fire had gone up?— Yes; there are very strong indications at the face. 174. In line with the bord ? —ln a line with the slit going up, as if it had come up the slit and struck against the high side. 175. What would that show you—that the explosion came from a level below the water or from the blown-out shot ?—ln my opinion it must have come from below the blown-out shot. 176. As a practical man, do you think it possible for the force to be exerted on the high side of that bord if it came from the blown-out shot ? —No ; I think it would have gone straight in from the lower joint. 177. You say you made your examination on the 4th April ?—Yes. 178. Why did not you go down before the 4th April? Why did you leave it so long?— The management thought it was not safe for any one to go down until the air was better. 179. Had the water risen much ?—The pumps were not working, and the water had risen over the working-level. 180. And prevented your inspecting the mine in the condition it was in before the explosion ? —Yes. 181. Going up the slit to the blown-out shot, did you see a truck there?— Not in the slit, there is a truck on the inside of the incline. 182. Did you notice anything about that slip ? Was the coal charred on the high side or the low side ? —The low side—second incline. 183. Would that also lead you to the conclusion that the blast went up the incline?— Yes. 184. You know the fall marked in No. 3 bord—Hunter and Denniston's ? —Yes. 185. Did you notice any charring along the bord ?—lt was very very severely charred. 186. Nearly as severe as where the blown-out shot was? —Not so severely, but the next bord to that had been charred in places. 187. Did you see where the force had expended itself in No. 2 incline ?—Yes ; it was the strongest in No. 2 incline into the mine. 188. Had it struck the wall ?—Yes, very forcibly. 189. What direction did that show you that the blast had gone ? —lt showed that it had gone up No. 2 incline very strongly, and had struck on the top of this gallery, above Pattinson's bord. 190. Did that show it had come from the blown-out level or from the water-level ?—lt showed evidence, as far as I got down, that it was still coming up from the water-level. 191. Do you know whether there was water in the hottom level at the time of the explosion? —There must have been water, because it could not have risen up so far in the time. I was only there after the water was up. 192. Assuming the blast could go down and meet the water, do you think it would then rebound back again ?-—I should think it would not be so strong if there was water there. 193. If the coal-dust blast went down and struck the water, would it not have expended itself in the water ? —lf there had been water there there would have been a very small rebound, but it is not the case at present; all the indications are going up. 194. If the rebound was not as great as the force of the explosion and the explosion went down, you would see the greatest marks going down ? —You would naturally think so. 195. Does the prop blown out near the blown-out shot show that it was blown up the slit or down ?—I have not examined that prop. I must have missed it. I saw the prop lying down, but did not pay any attention to it, and do not know whether it was blown up the slit or not. 196. You saw some coal lying near the blown-out shot on the floor ? —Yes. 197. That evidently was roof-coal?—I did not say that. 198. You do not know whether it came from a blown-out shot or the roof ?—I do not think much of it came off the roof. Most of it was blown off the hole along with the tamping. 199. Can you account for the fact that the block of wood lying there was not burnt, neither was the coal, and still the roof was intensely charred ?—The flame might have hung to the roof. 200. Do you believe the charring and coking on the floor fell from the roof, or was it caused by the high temperature on the floor ?—I believe most of it came from the roof, on account of the roofcoal burning. 201. I thing Mr. Hayes is of opinion that it was caused by a floor-fire. Are you of that opinion ? —My opinion is that it came from the roof. 202. Sir J. Hector.] Naturally, the stuff dropped as it burned?— Yes. 203. Mr. Joyce.] With regard to the piece of fuse that was picked up, could you tell whether that fuse was fired a week ago or twelve months ago ? —I could not.