Tweet

(Mr. Edge.) I believe, Mr. Johnson, you are the responsible manager of the mine? — I am, and Mr. Crone is the consulting viewer and agent.

(Mr. Morley.) He is agent, is he over you? — Yes.

He is your superior in the management of the mine? — Yes.

How often is he at the mine? — He has only recently been put in charge.

When was he appointed? — I do not know exactly.

How long before the accident? — About two months, I do not know whether it is more or less.

During that time has he been constantly at the mine? — He has been regularly at the mine but not down the pit at all.

Before him, who held the office of agent? — Myself.

As well as certified manager? — Yes.

Since the time Mr. Crone was appointed, the practical management of the mine was still in your hands? — Yes.

But in all questions arising as to the management of the mine he held the position previously held by you? — Yes, I would consult him.

And he would be obliged to decide? — Yes.

Had any questions arisen in which you had consulted him? — No, sir, not since he was appointed.

(Mr. Bell.) Is it not customary to give notice to the inspector on mines when any change of this sort takes place? — I do not know what notice they may have given ; I have not given any.

(Mr. Bell.) I have not heard of Mr. Crone till now, not until the explosion.

I am a check-weighman, and I represent the executive committee. I have been a viewer for many years, I live at Philadelphia. I formed one of the exploring party, and went down with the inspectors of mines into the east pit on the morning of the 28th April, Mr. Bell, Mr. Willis, Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Douglas, and some others. I went along the main way to the East Pit, and the first thing I had my attention drawn to was the shot which had been formed in the Shieldfield district. The indications of the blast were little or nothing ; it was a question for me whether they were in or out-over. When I got to the Stenton between the intake and the return I examined the place and found there had been a stone shot fired. Part of the hole was left and underneath there was some stone lying. My attention was drawn to Mr. Bell to some wood that was lying about. I proceeded to remove the wood, and found a portion of a door hurled under the Stenton. The hinge was one part that I took out. I went along the Shieldfield way and I observed some drills standing by the side, as though they had recently been used, and also some stemming. I then went into the Shieldfield way, where the indications were in-bye.

(Mr. Edge.) We all agree upon that.

(Mr. Bowey.) Yes, I think so.

(Witness.) I went along the Sunderland Bridge way and found the indications there were in-bye over. Sheaves and different portions of timber were blown in with great force. Some days afterwards I was in the West Pit with Mr. Neasham and other gentlemen belonging to the colliery, but there had been some considerable alterations there. Close to the bottom of the Alma Bank, at the right-hand side, I was informed was a wench 7 yards further in from where it was originally standing.

(Mr. Morley.) Have you formed any opinion with regard to the origin of the explosion? — I can scarcely say I have.

(The Coroner.) You cannot say what may have been the cause of the explosion? — Under the circumstances I cannot : I was not there in time.

(Mr. Edge.) Were you there when the lock of the door was found at the Stenton? — No, I had no knowledge of any lock.

(Mr. Morley.) Did you examine the fall in No. 6 way? — Yes.

In what direction were the indications up No. 6 way to the fall? — The indications were in bye-over.

Were they consistent with the explosion originating at the fall? — Well, I have an idea of the explosion originating at the fall.

Were they consistent with the fall? — Probably they might have been.

I have been an engineer for 35 years, and am now mining engineer for Messrs. Pease. I went down this pit on the Friday afternoon after the accident to assist in getting the men out. I went down the pit for the purpose of examining it with Messrs. Stevenson, Wood, Bell, and the last witness. I went along the East Pit, and along the Sunderland Bridge way, and I went along the Stenton where Faulkner's shot was fired. I noticed that when we went into the pit north of the shot-hole there had not been much alteration in the timber, but dust was on it on the out-bye side. This was between the shaft and the shot-hole. From the in-bye side of the stables to the shot-hole my opinion was that the blast had gone in-bye from the stables to where the shot was. I did not see any signs of the shot being fired. I found the timber at the edge of the Stenton, and there was nothing moved, and nothing apparently struck. I saw where the fall had taken place from the roof. There was no door in, but merely a temporary brattice to pass the air forward. In my judgement, if gas had been found in the return to the westward from Faulkner's Stenton, gas could not have got out into this intake. The pressure would have been in-bye towards the return. If there was any leakage at the doors the gas would get into the return instead of the intake. I noticed that the indications in the stables went from west to east. The bricks in the stoppings were blown west to east. I went back towards the West Pit at the end of the landing, and saw the timber was jammed back, and had gone towards the West Pit. From the stable travelling along No. 4 to No. 6, I found clear evidence that the blast had been out-bye.

(Mr. Bowey.) The last witness said that when he went in on the 28th there had been great changes made, and he would not on that account speak of the indications. I do not know how you can speak to them, seeing that you went to the pit at the same time?

(Witness.) I was in subsequently on May 11 between the stables and No. 6, and from what I then saw I am convinced that it came out-bye. All the crossings had been blown out on the in-bye end, and those on the out-bye were left standing. I noticed a considerable amount of dust upon the stone and on the in-bye side of the stone. I also noticed there was a frame sheave, which was blown outward. It was at this point where the wench was said to be blown inward, but I did not see it. We were told of a rapper lever having been taken from under the fall. We were also shown where this rapper lever had been when it was fixed. It had been blown some few yards out-bye. At No. 6 curve the sheave frame was blown outwards. The air crossing beyond No. 6 curve at the out-bye end was standing good. The top of the arch was blown out on the in-bye end. About 40 yards in the in-bye of this crossing a 6 inch baulk was broken off, and the end of the half remaining piece was blown 1 foot out-bye. Proceeding past the air-crossing to a fall where about 2 foot is down, evidently fallen since the accident, and about 100 yards further I reached another fall about 10 yards long coated with dust. At 34 yards out-bye from No. 5 turn, we found strong indications of the blast going out-bye in the shape of thick dust deposits, and a strong prop broken and blown outwards. At No. 5 curve the side sheaves are 20 inches by 12 inches, the out-bye sheave was blown out of its place, the frame being broken by the blast outwards. The second at the top of the frame was blown off and outwards, and a prop near was leaning outwards. Proceeding along No. 5 way end we found numerous baulks and props, showing that the blast had evidently gone in-bye. Immediately after passing No. 5 we passed a disused crossing beyond No. 5 way end with the outer end blown 3 inches in-bye. The walls standing on a baulk were blown 5 inches in-bye and both sides were bulged. The in-bye end of the crossing was not moved, but there was dust on the in-bye side. 22 yards in-bye from the old crossing was a baulk of timber clearly blown out-bye. The dust up to this point gives strong evidence of the blast going out-bye. 20 yards further in-bye we found a strong 9 inch baulk clearly blown outwards and broken through the middle. There was also a strong baulk, 2 yards on the out-bye of the arch, clearly blown outwards at the west end. The baulk next the arch was slightly moved outwards at both ends, and the centre of the arch was lifted upwards. The baulks from the arch to the in-bye end of the landing were all either new or had been replaced. 50 yards in-bye from the large fall on the set a 6 inch prop was blown in-bye broken in the middle, and this was the first symptoms of the blast going in-bye. 6 yards further there was an upright square baulk, having large pieces of stone driven into it on the out-bye side. 30 yards further a 5 inch prop was strongly marked with stones on the out-bye side, another prop 2 yards further in was dusted on the out-bye side, and pieces of stone were blown into it. There was another prop struck by stones not far off, but the blast had evidently got weaker. Shortly before reaching the Whin Dyke the roof was broken up 15 to 20 feet. This fall had been caused at the time of the accident and has been since ridded. It appears to have come from two slips or troubles. There were various baulks, all blown inwards.

(Mr. Edge.) It is common ground that from this fall at any rate the blast was in-bye.

(Mr. Douglas.) I see nothing inconsistent with the fact that the men were burnt when they were found underneath this fall.

(Mr. Edge.) Is there anything inconsistent in the fact of the tail rope of the set being broken.

(Witness.) I have before me that the fall occurred in this way. When the set had been going in-bye that carried these men and lads, in some way or other it got damaged and got off the way, and had gone to where there was some timber and brought down the fall. The fall had brought down with it a very considerable quantity of gas which getting to a light caused the explosion.

(Mr. Edge.) I suppose that the explosion would bring down a still further fall of stone? — Yes, this is my view of how it happened.

And this would be consistent with the breaking of the chain? — Yes, but the breaking of the chain did not strike me as a remarkable feature.

(Mr. Edge.) Have you in your own experience known these tail chains to be broken when a set was going in-bye? — Yes, I can point to one or two strong instances of this kind, but I have a case of my own. I have known a tail rope which cracked when the sets were going in-bye.

(Mr. Edge.) Then I will take you down No. 4 off takes. Did you examine the Alma bank district? — Yes.

In your judgement how had the explosion gone in the Alma bank district? — The Alma bank was very much fallen. The crossing from No. 6 was plainly in-bye, and the marks had gone north to a distance of 9 yards in-bye. This is an indication that the explosion struck it on the out-bye end. Then went up this south road where a door stood 3 or 4 yards south from the Alma Bank, and found that the blast had carried both this outer door and the bricks to the south. The set of tubs from the landing had also been forced south and the end of the two out-bye tubs stove in. We went to the old No. 5 crossing which is blown to the north and the bricks at a distance of 18 yards north of this crossing. They were in the rolley way west in the return. In my judgement the seat of the explosion was at that fall in the No. 6 way and resulted in the way I have described.

(Mr. Edge.) Assuming for a moment that there was a fall in the goaf which went against this door, what would be the effect of opening this door? — There would be a back rush towards that door and into this return and back towards the door. The door is on the intake.

In your judgement if any gas had come in-bye of this door could it have travelled down the bank against the current? — No, it could not.

Assuming for a moment that it could have forced itself down to where the caution board was, would not the gas have gone into No. 5? — It would have found its level. It would have filled up all these places first, and then it would be found by the men in their lamps. I am now assuming that it was a very large accumulation of gas.

(Mr. Edge.) Take another assumption. We will assume that there was a naked light left burning there by White, and that goaf fired, what effect would it have at No. 5? — It would have gone in every direction from that centre. That has not occurred from what I gather.

(Mr. Bowey.) Mr. Douglas, you are a mining engineer of considerable experience, but have you had any experience of explosions? — I have had no experience in my own district. I am glad to say, it has all been at other places.

Have you seen many? — Two or three.

To be consistent with your theory that the explosion took place in the fall of No. 6 way, it would be necessary that there should have been some accident to the waggons before that? — I do not know that it is necessary.

Your theory is that the waggons jumped off the way, drew the timber which caused the fall, then that some gas came off and hence the explosion? — Yes.

What fact is there in warranting you to say that any of the waggons came off the way? — There has one come to light to day in the breaking of the rope. The jerk that would break this would give a jerk to the set and would probably throw some portion off the way.

There must have been an accident beforehand to support your theory? — It is necessary to support my theory that there must have something fallen on the set. The roof may have come down or many things might have happened.

Well, that is your theory. If that be so, will you please trace the explosion into the East Pit.

(Witness.) It went from the stables. The blast divided itself at the stables.

(Mr. Bowey.) Do you consider that these indications along No. 4 way, and from No. 6 towards the set are so marked and clear that you can give a definite opinion as to the seat of the explosion? — I have given you my grounds.

You are aware that in all these explosions the appearance or indications are very complicated? Are you in a position to give a definite opinion? — It is my opinion that it originated in No. 6 way.

Do you think that the indications are so very clear that you can safely say that it is so? — That is my opinion, and it is a most firm opinion. I can assure you.

(Mr. Morley.) The only way that you can make this case consistent with the theory you have advanced is that an accident happened to the chain to break it just at the time of the explosion.

(Witness.) The indications are such as to satisfy me as to the cause of the explosion.

Directly after the explosion you might expect a rebound which would account for some of the indications you have named? — The indications are of so strong and marked a character that I do not think they could have been done by a back blast.

(Mr. Morley.) The back blast would show itself on the loosened timbers.

(Witness.) Yes, I have taken that into account.

(Mr. Bell.) Would you not have expected that the shock would be upon the rope drawing the set in-bye? — Assuming that there was a connexion from the set it would be so.

Would it not be more consistent to assume that a severe blow against the set would cause the chain to break? — A very severe blow upon the back of the set would put a strain upon the following rope or tail rope and cause it to break.

You spoke about the probabilities of the explosion having occurred at the deputy's lamp in Old No. 5 way, and you said that the force of the explosion would be west and north and south and east of the place. Would you expect it to go far into this north way? — No, perhaps not very far. It would spread in every direction.

If the explosion had taken place at the fall, it would have gone into No. 6 way? — Yes, everything would have been the same.

How do you account for the slight indications directly we get over this point? — It is a very narrow place.

You have heard of these single doors in these places. There is a single door in the Croxdale way, a single door in the Coldstream way, and there are several other single doors. Do you approve of working a large pit like this with these single doors surrounded as it is with a goaf. There are about 500 yards, and do you approve of carrying the whole of the ventilation in there by a single door? — It depends upon the surroundings, but double doors are a great protection.

Then there was the nature of the seam, a rather gassy seam, do you think it was prudent to trust the ventilation of so large an area to a single door? — It would be perfectly safe at the same time two doors are a precaution.

Would you advocate ventilating a fiery mine with single doors? — I would provide two doors.

Would you allow it as the manager of a mine? — As a preference where anything depends upon it I should say a pair of doors certainly.

Did you ever find gas steal out in a main intake? — Yes, in some places it is not an uncommon thing. I have seen it.

Do you think that this Alma way, considering the large area of goaf, was a likely place for gas to be found? — I do not think so, because there was a very heavy rise there.

(Mr. Bell.) When you get over the trouble there is not such a heavy rise.

(Witness.) From the condition of the mine and all surroundings I should not have any hesitation in firing a shot there.

Would it not be better to have double doors for fear the gas got there? — Double doors would certainly be safest.

Do you think that taking the air such a long distance without a break is a proper method of ventilating a colliery like this where there is a fiery seam? — A split or two might improve matters.

(Mr. Bell.) There is always something oozing out of old goaves.

(Witness.) It would be improved by a split.

(Mr. Willis.) You admit that there has been gas to explode? — Undoubtedly there is gas in the colliery.

Has there been a considerable quantity or a small quantity? — Well, my opinion is with reference to explosions that a small quantity of gas may cause a very serious explosion. There is a popular notion that only pits which are full of gas will give rise to explosions. Many years ago I remember a very eminent man, the late John Thomas Taylor, in reading a paper on colliery explosions in 1866 said, "I have investigated up to this time, a great number of accidents, and I find that a quantity of 2,000 to 3,000 cubic feet of gas is sufficient to cause a very heavy serious explosion, the largest explosion I have ever known to occur in the counties of Durham or Northumberland. I remember taking part in the Hetton explosion in June 1860, and the enormous amount of damage then committed, was due to the combustion of 700 cubic feet of gas." I only mention this to show that enormous explosions might occur with a comparatively small amount of gas in a confined space.

(Mr. Bell.) We have it now that a small amount of gas may do a great amount of damage, is not this one reason why these small pieces of gas should be more carefully watched? — I hope they are watched and will be watched.

(Mr. Edge.) In your judgement had the fact of there being single doors anything to do with the explosion? — Not the slightest.

I am a mining engineer of 30 years experience, and am now at West Hetton Colliery. I have been in some of the largest explosions in this county. I have travelled Tudhoe pit to satisfy my mind as to the cause of the explosion. I agree with what Mr. Douglas has told us that the explosion has come in-bye to the stables. I agree with him as to the original seat of the explosion, it was at the set. I agree with him that it came out-bye from the set. In my judgement the explosion has taken place there and all the indications point to that place. I agree with Mr. Douglas as to the improbability of gas coming down from the goaf ; it is highly improbable, almost impossible.

(Mr. Bowey.) You agree with everything Mr. Douglas has said? — I do.

(Mr. Bowey.) I expected as much (laughter).

I am a mining engineer of many years experience, and have charge of Messrs. Bell Brothers collieries. I have been over this pit for the purpose of ascertaining, if I could, where the explosion had originated. I agree with what Mr. Douglas has said as to the seat of the explosion. I do not see any reason to differ from the evidence he has given.

(Mr. Bowey.) You agree with all the conclusions that he arrives at to-day? — As to the seat of the explosion, yes.

In all other matters you agree with him? — Yes.

This was all the evidence adduced, and the coroner then addressed the jury as follows :— Gentlemen of the Jury, I may say that this is a coroner's inquest, and it is something more. It seems that on the morning of Tuesday, the 18th April last, some time between one and two o'clock, an explosion of gas took place, which resulted in the death of 37 men and boys. We have now to inquire into the cause of the explosion, and you have heard there has been one or two theories started, first, that the explosion took place by a shot fired by two men, Faulkner and Cauldwell; and this theory has been strongly supported by evidence at the commencement of the inquiry. Another theory is that the explosion took place at a fall of stone in the No. 6 district, but whether or not it was caused by the set getting off the way, I cannot say how. I do not know that I need to state my opinion, but I will just say one thing, that no evidence has come out to implicate anybody criminally, and therefore you have simply got to say whether the explosion has been caused by the shot or fall or both. There is one thing quite certain, that the deaths of these men have been caused by the result of this explosion, whether by burns or after-damp or both. Well, now I do not think that I need to say more. If you cannot come to a conclusion as to the cause, whether from the firing of the shot or from the fall of stone, you can leave this question open, or if you like to say these men were accidentally killed, whether by the fall or the firing of the shot, then you can return that as your verdict. I will leave the matter with you and I have no doubt you will come to the right conclusion. Something was said about a tobacco pipe being found upon one of the deceased men, but I do not rely much upon it. With these few remarks I ask you to consider your verdict.

The Jury retired, and after a short consultation in private returned the following verdict :— "The Jury is quite unanimous in the opinion that the cause of the explosion was from a fall of stone in the engine plain, but how or by what means the said stone fell there is no distinct evidence to show, and that the deaths of Andrew Cauldwell, Joseph Faulkner and others were purely accidental."