C—l 4

118

[F. REED.

709. Not about section 56 ? —About the safety-lamps. 710. Do you not know that Mr.|Miller's opinion makes that section ? —That was his business. I believe that is correct. 711. Do you not know that he advises upon an entirely different section with reference to the prosecution ?—Yes, he referred to a special rule. 712. It was not section 56 he was considering ? —But as a lawyer he would not look up only the special rule. 713. Do you think he turned up section 56 ?—I do. 714. Section 56 has nothing to do with the prosecution; that is an entirely different thing ?— It has reference to arbitration. 715. But under section 56 any Inspector may give notice requiring certain things to be done, and if it is objected to the matter goes to arbitration ?—That is so. 716. Was any attempt made to get an opinion from the Crown Law Officers as to whether safetylamps could be ordered under that section, so as to compel the matter to go to arbitration ? -Not to my knowledge. 717. Did you ever suggest that that should be done I —l was not asked for an opinion. 718. And therefore you did not suggest it ? —Yes. 719. Do I understand you correctly that you only differed from Mr. Bennie as to the use of safety-lamps in the mine ?■ —That was the main thing upon which I differed from him. 720. You believe that Mr. Bennie is a conscientious man, and does his work to the best of his ability ?-—I can say more than that. I consider him to be an experienced, and competent, and honourable officer. 721. Then, when he reported that he did not consider the use of safety-lamps necessary, and that their use might be dangerous, did you consider that he was honest in that opinion ? —Yes. 722. Did you disagree with Mr. Bennie as to the condition of the ventilation of the mine prior to the explosion ?—I could not tell what was the condition of the ventilation of the mine prior to the explosion. 723. You do not contradict him ?—No, he was there, and I was not. 724. Would you be prepared, knowing him as you do, to act upon his statements regarding the ventilation ? —lf he said, " I saw certain conditions existing," I would believe him; but I would not believe opinions without verification. I would agree with what he saw, but he may have inadvertently overlooked something. 725. You have told us that owing to the multiplicity of your duties you could not possibly supervise the work of each man if the law requires it ?—No, no man on earth could. 726. Would you be prepared to act upon Mr. Bennies report as to the ventilation or any other matter ?—lt just depends upon what the matter was. I would sooner act upon my own knowledge. 727. But supposing that was impracticable because of your other duties ? —I would not then like to say. I would not trust my professional reputation to any man. I prefer my own opinion. 728. Now, you said that the absence of safety-lamps was the cause of the explosion ?—Yes, it was. A naked light caused the explosion. 729. Therefore, the opinion expressed by Mr. Bennie that safety-lamps were not necessary would, under the conditions existing, be a dangerous opinion to hold ?—I say that it was my opinion that this was a safety-lamp proposition. 730. Here we are concerned with the lives of hundreds of men. Yours was a very strong opinion that the safety of their lives depended upo-n a single matter ? —Mainly upon the question of safetylamps. 731. Mr. Bennies opinion differs radically from yours ?—Yes. 732. Do you not consider, therefore, seeing what the possible consequences would be, that the opinion he held was a dangerous one, from your point of view ? —I do not like to describe his as a dangerous opinion. It was different from mine. 733. But an opinion which was so erroneous on such an important matter would be a dangerous opinion to your mind, would it not ? —I have never used the words " dangerous opinion "in my life regarding a professional colleague. 734. It was a grave matter for the responsible officer to hold in a matter which you thought might involve danger to human life ? —I think that is right. It was a grave situation, and required careful consideration. 735. Did you not think it was your duty, seeing that you and he differed upon this very important point, to suggest that some other authority should be called upon to decide ?—The Under-Seoretary received my opinion, and also that of the Inspector of Mines, and he was the person to exercise his discretion. 736. And his discretion apparently lead him to decide that Mr. Bennie was right ? —I do not know. Read the letter. You have his opinion. 737. I know what he says ?—Then, why ask me ? I believe the Under-Secretary did his duty. 738. So, then, the Under-Secretary did really adjudicate, as it were, between your opinion and Mr. Bennie, upon this question of safety-lamps,,and he did that to the best of his ability ?—Yes. 739. And honestly ? —Every time. 740. When you visited the mine about three years ago, I think it was, did you go into many parts of the mine ? —No ; we made an ordinary examination of the principal parts of the mine, but not a. detailed examination. That would have taken a fortnight. I visited the mine as a member of the Royal Commission. 741. I was referring to you not as a member of the Royal Commission, but as Inspecting Engineer ? On that former occasion I went pretty well up to Taupiri West. I was sent up by Mr. Roderick