C—l 4.

156

[P. G. MORGAN.

31. Was there any oil found there : were you wrong ? —No, I was not wrong. 32. But there is no work going on there now ? —That may be. I made a report which stated all the facts, and allowed any one to draw his own conclusions. It was open for any one to conclude that it was not worth while putting down prospecting bores. 33. In regard to your anticline theory, it assumes that there was gas at the apex ?—Yes, that is the general theory. 34. Then, in spite of that theory, the gas which caused the disaster at Huntly was on the leg of the anticline ? —No. 35. It was not at the apex, was it ?—Why not ? [Plan and section of bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 discussed.] 36. In this bord No. 6, that would surely be called the leg of the anticline and not the apex-?— Do you not see the section, which shows the gas at the top of the slope ? 37. It is' not on the apex where Martin was burned ? You would not say that he was right at the apex at the time of the explosion ? —I did not say where he was. 38. If the mixture had been too rich it would not have exploded ? —No, but Martin's light would have gone out. 39. If he had passed through that door it is not possible that he could have proceeded down the bord with his lamp still alight ?—No, because it would have gone out if the firedamp mixture had been too rich. 40. Do you agree with Sir R. A. 8. Redmayne's theory, that at the point of origin an explosion is less violent than it is later on ?—I think that the gas-explosion was a good deal less violent than the coaldust explosion which followed. 41. The explosion at the point where Martin was was less violent than that which followed the explosion of the coaldust ?—Yes. 42. It was increased by the coaldust as it travelled ? —I should think so. 43. Do you know anything about the explosives which are used in mines ?—No, practically nothing except what I have read of them. 44. Do you know that according to official British statistics for 1912 there were three accidents caused through the use of monobel ? —I do not know that. 45. You would not deny it ? —No, if it is in the British statistics I would freely admit it. May I say that I consider all explosives dangerous in a coal-mine. 46. The Chairman.'] You mean that it is impossible to get an explosive which is absolutely safe ? —Certainly. 47. Mr. Wilford.] Are you aware that during .1912 monobel was condemned in England, and monobel No. 1 was put on the permitted list ? —I do not know the date, but lam aware that that is so. 48. Mr. Dowgray.] You said that there was no safe explosive ?—I think that is a matter of common knowledge. 49. Mr. Wilford.] It is agreed, I think, that a non-flame-producing explosive is less dangerous than a flame-producing one, and that if you can get a non-flame-producing explosive that is the one you should use ? —That is so. 50. Do you know that in 1911 there were 34,000 lb. of monobel imported into this country ; and in 1912, after it was taken off the permitted list in the Old Country, there were 42,000 lb. imported into this country ?—I have heard that from Mr. Reed. 51. Can you tell me whether a serious explosion at Barnsley Main Colliery was caused by the use of monobel ?—I have heard that that is so. 52. From your experience of the Taupiri Mine, are you satisfied that it is safe for that mine to be worked without safety-lamps ? —I would not like to be responsible for working it without safetylamps. 53. If you had the authority to prevent the company from working the mine without safetylamps would you do so ?—Possibly not. 54. You would not: would you stop them from working unless they used safety-lamps ? —You mean, if the whole responsibility rested upon me ? I can hardly say what I would do in that case, but if I wished to be on the safe side I would certainly order the use of safety-lamps. 55. "Would a safety-lamp have saved Martin's life ? —Probably. 56. Is there any doubt about it ? —Certainly, but there is not a great amount of doubt about it. That safety-lamp which was carried by Mr. Reed might have caused an explosion. It is possible for the gauge of some classes of safety-lamps to get red hot. Humanly speaking, what you wish me to say is correct —namely, that there would have been no explosion if Martin had had a safety-lamp and had used it intelligently. 57. If a deputy had inspected that bord before Martin went in, must he have discovered gas there —say, half an hour before ? —He would almost certainly have done so. 58. Mr. Tunhs.] On the question of explosives, do you know that monobel is responsible for only three accidents out of 23,000,000 shots ?—No. 59. Do you know that monobel was allowed to be used in Great Britain for twelve months after it was taken off the permitted list, in order that the change could be made in the use of explosives and the manufacture of it adjusted ?—No, I do not know that it was such a long time as that, but I am quite willing to accept the statement that twelve months was given. 60. Now, in your statement you refer to a coincidence which it is hardly reasonable to assume —that Martin may have been entering the stenton near which his body was found, and there encountered an explosive mixture just beginning to issue from No. 5 bord. Why should there not be such a coincidence as that —that there should be a sudden emission of gas just at that time ? You see the fall which probably produced that gas had to take place some time ? —Yes.