F. REED.]

C.—l 4.

99

186. When does the cap run to a triangle ? —At about 3 per cent. At 2 per cent, it is a truncated cone. [Diagram explained against the light of a window.] I have here the instructions issued by the Home Office to firemen and deputies for gas-testing in mines. [Instructions read by witness.] Here in Huntly they are using petroleum or kerosene in their lamps. The gas-testers should use colza oil. 187. I want to ask you another point, Mr. Eeed, re Mr. Miller's opinion ?—I glanced through it. 188. Did you see the statement of facts submitted to Mr. Miller by Mr. Bennie ? This is a copy of the letter to Mr. Miller upon which the opinion was framed : "On the 9th. July ultimo, a miner named William Kelly was burned by an ignition of CH 4 gas in the Taupiri Coal Company's mine. The examining deputy reported finding gas in Kelly's working-place on the Ist July ultimo, but on each succeeding morning up to and including the 9th July (date of accident) the examining deputy reported the place clear (safe). The Coal-mines Act, 1908, section 60, states, ' Accident in mine frima facie evidence of neglect.' Special Rule 14, Second Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908, states, ' The underviewer, under the direction of the manager, shall see that locked safety-lamps are used and naked lights excluded wheresoever and whensoever danger from firedamp is apprehended.' The manager did not order safety-lamps to be used, and Kelly was using a naked light. Under the above circumstances, is the manager guilty of a breach of Special Rule 14, Second. Schedule, Coal-mines Act, 1908 ? " I want to know are those facts which were submitted by Mr. Bennie to Mr. Miller sufficient to enable him to give any opinion other than the one he did ?—lf I were consulting lawyers I would tell them the whole of the circumstances as to all the ignitions. 189. At any rate, before any one could arrive at an opinion they would want to know the whole of the conditions in regard to the explosions ?—Yes, and more than that—very much more. 190. What more ?—They should know the unique conditions of the mine as regards the accumulations of gas in the old workings. There are other things also. I have them all down in my notebook—reasons why special measures should have been adopted at this mine. 191. Have you got them tabulated ?—These are the reasons why I wrote those six letters which foretold this disaster: (1) The large area of high workings to be adequately ventilated; (2) prequency of gas-ignitions, any of which, might have occasioned a holocaust, dust being present; (3) weakness of the Coal-mines Act; (4) naked lights and flame-producing explosives in use; (5) inexperienced men generally as far as gas-testing is concerned. As we have only one other known gassy mine in New Zealand, our New-Zealand-born colliers have no opportunity of studying the gas problem like the Home colliers, and from what I have seen of those coming up for their certificates, as examiner, I have found that they are generally tiros at the gas-test. 1 refer to the New-Zealand-born miners. The majority of the young men about these mines are New-Zealanders who have never had an opportunity of qualifying in gas-testing. As officials, however good and willing, they would not know gas when they got among it. Another reason for fear is the smallness of the fan. A fan with a capacity of 45,000 cubic feet a minute, although it supplied the minimum of 150 cubic feet of air per man per minute required by the Act, was inadequate to clear the noxious gases from such an enormous area of old workings standing open. Those are the reasons which caused my fears, which were based upon my experience at Durham, where we regarded an ignition of gas as a most serious thing. If such an occurrence happened without any one being injured it was looked upon as a let-off. If an ignition took place and there was not a disaster as a result we were thankful for it. Professor Dixon has said that a small quantity of gas would ignite a dust-explosion, which confirms my fear. 192. Do you know of any power under the present law by means of which the Inspector of Mines can increase the minimum quantity of air to provide adequate ventilation in old workings ?—Yes, section 40, subsection (1). 193. Although the Act provides a minimum, there is nothing to prevent the Inspector from increasing it ?—Not in the least; then there is Special Rule 3as well. 194. This is a question to which I want you to be careful about your answer : Was the ventilation provided by the Taupiri Company sufficient for the ventilation of that particular mine—l mean everywhere, old and present workings ?—As I was not in the mine before the explosion for a long time, I am unable to say what portions of the mine were well ventilated and which ill ventilated ; but a fan of 45,000 cubit feet capacity is inadequate, and I understand that Mr. Fletcher has already ordered one of 200,000 ft. capacity, so that he appreciates the fact that his fan is inadequate. Possibly a wiser man would have installed a larger fan years ago. 195. Under Special Rule No. 1, after dealing with the responsibility of the manager and the operative details of the mine being under his daily supervision, it says, " He shall be responsible for the appointment of a sufficient number of competent persons to carry out the requirments of the Coalmines Acts and the special rules, and also to see that the working of the mine is carried on with all reasonable provisions for the safety of the persons employed." Did the company, in your opinion, appoint a sufficient number of competent men to carry out the Coal-mines Act and to see that the mine was carried on with all reasonable provisions for the safety of the persons employed ?—That is a question upon which I would not like to express an opinion. It is not fair to ask me to express an opinion, as I was not in the mine for a long time before the explosion. 196. I want to sum up your evidence-in-chief with a few questions : Was this explosion caused by the use of a naked light ?—Yes. 197. Would the use of a safety-light by Martin, instead of a naked light, have prevented the explosion ?—Yes, if the safety-lamp was in a safe condition—that is, if it was an efficient safety-lamp, and he had handled it properly. The explosion then would not have occurred. 198. Was there, in your opinion, an accumulation of gas in bords Nos. 4, 5, and 6 ?—Yes, a large accumulation, in my opinion. .199. Could the presence of that gas have been discovered if an examining deputy had visited those bords prior to the workmen going in ?—Yes, certainly.