C—l 4

F. REED

141

1379. He recommended a prosecution whether it failed or not. The matter was referred to you, and you advised that an opinion be obtained ?—Yes, likewise a prosecution, in the first part of that letter, which you have omitted to read. 1380. So that Inspector Bennies instructions were to consult a reliable solicitor, and in the event of the opinion being favourable to the Department's chance of securing a conviction, proceedings were to be taken ? —Yes. 1381. He obtained a solicitor's opinion, and was advised that a prosecution would not be successful. Mr. Bennie performed his duty and carried out all his instructions ?—Yes, and reported that no good purpose would be served by a prosecution. 1382. He showed you the solicitor's opinion I—He1 —He put it on the table in his office, but I did not have time to read it. We were very busy on other matters. 1383. His recollection is that he handed it to you ?—Yes. 1384. Mr. Bennie would not be aware of the letters which you wrote to the Under-Secretary in connection with this mine ? —I do not know, unless they were sent to him by the Under-Secretary. In the ordinary course of his duty he would not see them. 1385. You arranged with him to visit the Taupiri Mine about the sth September ?- 1 do not remember. We were talking about the visit, but it did not come off because I was summoned to Ureymoutli by telegram. I arrived there on the 10th September, two days before the disaster at Huntly. 1386. You were at the Thames on the sth September, and were called away ? —Yes. 1387. The Chairman (at the request of Mr. Napier).] Did you see the legal opinion when you were in the Inspector's office at the Thames ?—I am not sure. My recollection is that I first saw it on Wednesday, the 9th, just before I left for Greymouth, when it was sent to me by the Under-Secretary in Wellington. If Mr. Bennie says that he showed it to me when I was in his office at the Thames on the sth September, it was not read by me. 1 cannot recollect it. 1388. Mr. JJowgray.] Did you give evidence at the inquest I —l was never asked to give evidence at the inquest. People appeared to shun the subject of my giving evidence at the inquest. 1.389. You stated that the Inspector of Mines had ordered the company to install safety-lamps; did the Inspector of Mines get his instructions from the Minister ?—I do not know. 1390. Since the disaster there have been instructions given to the company to install safetylamps ? —Yes, I understand so. Mr. Macassey: The Minister gave the Inspector of Mines instructions to that effect when he was here, and the Inspector ordered the company to install the lamps accordingly. 1391. Mr. Dowgray.] I know there was a statement made by the Minister that he had given instructions to this company that they were to use safety-lamps. I wanted to know whether Mr. Reed knew that the company had been instructed to use safety-lamps and permitted explosives ?—I did not associate in the instructions permitted explosives with safety-lamps. The newspaper in which I read of it stated " safety-lamps," and I understood it to be safety-lamps only. 1392. Mr. Brown.] I would like to draw your attention again to section 48 (b) of the Bill, in regard to the appointment of workmen's inspectors : do you not think that these men should have at least five years' underground experience ?—I think it would be better if experienced men were appointed, though I take it that the unions would not appoint inexperienced men. 1393. It has been brought under my notice that young men of limited experience have been appointed as workmen's inspectors, and I think you will agree that they should have at least five years' underground experience. You will know that this provision enables them to appoint any one, whether employed in the mine or not, to be an Inspector. It does not necessarily specify that the Inspectors shall be miners ? —No. 1394. Do you not think that they should have five years' underground experience ?-—The Department has not hampered the unions in the selection of their inspectors. It was concluded that they would appoint experienced men. 1395. Are you of opinion that it would be better to stipulate the amount of experience a man should have ?—Yes. 1396. In regard to the question of additional rules, if it is reasonable that a man should have five years' experience before he can be appointed a workmen's inspector, it should also be reasonable for him to have five years' experience before he can be appointed to the Board to consider these special rules ? —lt has not been put in the Bill, but I think it would be better if it were. 1397. Clause 13 is also a very important one. It has reference to the height of lifts in pillars. We may take it that the manager or the underviewer visits the working-places of the mine as often as he can. Now, this clause appears to me to be a very dangerous one. If you have, we will say, a seam 14 ft. thick, with a tender coal roof and a hard stone roof, is it possible to hold that coal in the first lift ? —No. I think this was the most debated subject in the whole Bill: it was considered that 10 ft. was as high as a man could safely timber under ordinary conditions ; if it is a bad roof it was not to be insisted upon, in such cases to take out the coal to the roof in the first lift. This provision of 10 ft. in the clause is not a hard-and-fast rule, as is stated in the next paragraph. 1398. I do not take it that the matter is treated fairly, inasmuch as the man who examines the place daily, and the manager who inspects it frequently, is in a much better position to judge whether that coal can be worked safely than the Inspector who pays a casual visit. Assuming that you are taking out a row of pillars and in a safe place, you are able to take it up, as you suggest, in a 10 ft. lift. In coming back it may be important to get a certain pillar out so that the fall which you expect will be a good one. According to this clause you must wait until it is judged by the Warden, or the Inspector, or the Inspecting Engineer before you can take that particular pillar out, and probably that delay will do damage ?—lf you look back to clause 9 (b) you will see the additional rule that committee can prescribe the height of first workings.