Tweet

12. It should be stated that it was deemed by the coroner, and assented to by all, that a proper course to elucidate the facts was for the counsel for the owners, who had knowledge of the facts and details, to lead the evidence in chief, using his own discretion, and that, representing the Home Office, I should then examine the witnesses, followed by such questions as Her Majesty's Inspectors might ask; then that the counsel for the miners and representatives should cross-examine, and the counsel for the owners finally re-examine. This course was pursued. Here it is only fair to observe that, in the exercise of his discretion, time owner's counsel did not in the first instance attempt, with the aid of Mr. Grieves, the manager, to localise the explosion. He confined his evidence to the description of the mine, with such other evidence as tended to establish the non-fiery condition of the workings, nor did Mr. Grieves commit himself to the cause of such explosion. All that could be said they urged was "an explosion somehow took place at or about the 'Staple Curve', but how, by what agency, or by whom, nobody knew," but it was soon manifest, however, that the exact locality of the explosion was not seriously, if at all, in issue, that it was in in the Cross-cut Way, and at a point about 148 yards in-bye from Staple Curve. But whether it was from "gas" or from "shot-firing," and dust ignition, were matters not absolutely determined, as far as the opinion of the management was concerned, but was to be left to the expert evidence. This course led to a lengthy cross-examination, and, perhaps unfortunately, another theory was started by the owners in opposition to the obvious theory of "shot-firing," viz., the theory (ultimately discredited by the finding of the jury) mainly supported by the witness Mr. Blackett, a mining engineer, and which theory did obtain some faint support at the hands of other experts, viz. "That somehow or other a stone-man's powder canister had been ignited in the first instance, had gone off, setting fire to the dust, and so communicating with a squib, which already had been inserted in a drilled hole in a projecting stone, 148 yards from Staple Curve and in-bye the Cross-cut Way, and so had become the initial cause of the tiring of the mine." In short, that the exploded powder canister (assuming it to have contained powder) was, in the judgment of Mr. Blackett, the primary cause, and not, as it seemed to others, one of the direct effects of the explosion. The result of these conflicting views necessarily caused the investigation to be somewhat more prolonged than otherwise the simple facts demanded to establish that the explosion was caused by shot firing, and not by this somewhat far-fetched theory.

The above will explain much of the evidence, and the methods by which the results that now follow were ascertained.

13. The salient questions to be answered were found to be as follows :—

(a.) Was a shot fired at about 10 p.m. on the night of the 13th April, and, if so, by whom (b.) If a shot was fired, was it in a main haulage road within General Rule 12 of the Mines Regulation Act, 1887, and see particularly sub-rules "f," "g," "h," and "i," and also Special Rules of Brancepeth Colliery. Rule 114 ? (c.) If a shot was so fired in a main haulage road within General Rule 12, "f," and particularly "i," and Special Rule 114, was such shot fired by a competent person ? (d.) Was the main haulage road "a dry and dusty place," assuming it to have been a Place where ordinarily locked safety lamps are not required to be used within General Rule 12 (supra) and Special Rule 114. And incidentally involved here was the further question, what is the standard of "dryness" or "dustiness" in such a place which renders it necessary to follow strictly the conditions in General Rule 12 and Special Rule 114, in other words — who is to be judge of it, and what is to be the test (e.) Was Rogerson the competent person who could, on the 13th April, determine both points, i.e., (1) necessity for shot firing, (2) the condition of the place, or had his authority been limited, and if so, when and by whom? (f.) If the place was "dry and dusty within the rules cited, or even if it was not so dry and dusty, as a fact was the place of firing, and all contiguous accessible places within a radius of 20 yards there from, in a wet state from thorough watering.

14. Taking the above questions in order, it is now desirable to point to the evidence which led to certain conclusions definitely arrived at. First — was a shot fired, and if so, was it in a main haulage road ? The results of the explosion as regards the wreckage of the mine, and the positions of certain dead bodies observed by the explorers, must soon have satisfied every one that the spot from whence the destructive force proceeded was somewhere within a short distance in-bye of the "Staple Curve," and in the Cross-cut Way. (It started, to quote Mr. Grieves, from beyond where Rogerson was, and on the in-bye side of Nicholson, (see plan).) Its effects were seen in opposite directions; from that point towards the downcast shaft the force had come outbye, over; wrecking everything in its way, until expended at the foot of the shaft, where tubs were found badly broken. The stoppings had all been blown out. Between the shaft and the Staple Curve, viz., 150 yards from the "Lady Curve," a man named Forster, a shifter, was found much mutilated, and also burnt; 50 or 60 yards further in Ralph Lawson, also a shifter, was found in a headway; he was also burnt. At the old South Way (see plan) two boys were found coming out, happily uninjured. It was obvious they were in the old South Way out of the line of the explosive force. When the Jet Way (see plan), 1 mile in, was reached, on the morning of the 14th, it was found, as regards air, to be quite dead; the stoppings and air crossings had been blown down. The force then had also gone in over in the direction of the Jet Way. It had also gone in over down the Cross-cut Way and along the Dairy Way. The doors and stoppings towards Oakenshaw were all in over. Returning to the Staple Curve, the following bodies were found (see mark on the plan) :— In the Cross-Cut Way, Rogerson, the master shifter, 90 yards in-bye from the corner of Staple Curve; Nicholson (a stone-man) 39 or 40 yards further in; J. Dowson (stone-man), with his jacket off, 38 yards beyond; W. Cook (stoneman), 36 yards beyond; and H. Hodgson 10 yards beyond. Cook was lying under some timber. There were two falls before Rogerson's body was reached. Here, therefore, within 214 yards from Staple Curve, were these four stone-men and the master shifter. Taken in conjunction with the evidence as to the re-timbering which Rogerson was to have done in the Cross-cut Way during the shift, it appeared almost certain that the four men with Rogerson had at the time of the explosion been engaged in some work at about the junction of the Cross-cut Way and the Jet Bank. Along the Jet Way four bodies were found. They were not mutilated or burnt, but had evidently walked out about 500 yards from their work, and had met the afterdamp. So, too, along the Dairy Way, stoppings had been blown in, and all the other indications that the full effect of the force had been felt right up to the face of the coal in the Dairy Way, and also in the North Cross Cut (see plan). Bodies of other men were found in the Dairy Way, some 200 yards from the place where they had worked. These also had not been burnt, but had succumbed to the effects of afterdamp. In short, the result is that an explosive force had somehow been generated at the point already indicated, near Rogerson and the four men, and had been expended along the several lines or ways with great violence until, on the left, it had discharged itself by means of the shaft, and in the other directions against the face of the workings. Further, that flame had also accompanied the force so far, but not in all cases to the extreme limits of the mine. That the explosion was an explosion of dust was amply demonstrated and, indeed, was accepted by all witnesses, including the experts, Mr. Blackett and Mr. Simon Tate, called on behalf of the owners, and Mr. Plummer, the Assistant Government inspector of Mines, and also that it was an explosion of dust initiated at the point marked X at the Staple Curve, and Mr. Blackett admitted that there were traces of coking, or burning of dust, not only in the vicinity of the shot-firing at Staple Curve, but also in other directions. Then it remains to be shown that the evidence upon which the jury ultimately based their verdict clearly pointed to the firing of a shot by someone at the indicated spot in the Cross-cut Way. Shortly, it was as follows :—

15. From the history of the mine, and the total absence of firedamp or gas, no one believed that gas was found to have played even the slightest part in the case of the explosion. No gas had been reported prior to the accident. No witnesses admitted even the possibility of gas coming from the goaves in the vicinity of the Cross-cut Way.

It seems for about two weeks after the explosion there was much speculation as to the cause. The management had never regarded the main haulage ways outside the caution boards as dangerous places.

On the 28th April, however, on minute inspection of the vicinity of the explosion, it was found that just within the point beyond Staple Curve, 148 yards along the Crosscut Way, a stone, which projected downwards from the roof of the Main Haulage Way, which had been there for 22 years, and did not so project as to interfere with the passage of men or tubs, had been drilled to the extent of 17½ inches in length and 2 inches in diameter. It was of extremely hard substance, and only a section of it, about 2 cwts., had been brought down. At the extreme end of the bore was a "joint" or "jack," and the hole (if the purpose intended was to remove the stone) had been, in the opinion of experts, drilled, as to its direction, in an unskilful way, and such as a master shifter would not have sanctioned. In the drilled hole traces of dust, mixed with stone for stemming, were found. The charge of powder (a compressed cartridge) used was probably half a pound. It was not, in the judgment of some experts, an overcharge, if the hole had been properly drilled, but as it was, and taking the extreme hardness of material and also the "joint" or "jack," in the result the effect was to detach only a small portion, and to give off a greater body of flame than would have been the case if the shot had done its proper work, and so became the cause of ignition of dust. There was found also, the day after the explosion, in a refuge hole, the gear for shot-firing close to the shot. Also a water tub and two scoups, and a squib were also found 1 yard from the refuge hole and 2½ yards from the stone where the shot was fired. All these were found between Nicholson's body and Dowson's body. Mr. Blackett also found, not far from Dowson, a shattered powder canister, but at a spot within a brick-stopping which had been blown in, and not in the main way. The point of initiation was, in Mr. Blackett's opinion, close to Dowson's body. No safety lamp nor candle was found in Dowson's vicinity.

Mr. Blackett admitted that until the 28th April, when the gear and canister were found, he, with others, had concluded that shot-firing had been the cause of the explosion, but that he had changed his opinion, and then believed that the powder in the canister had exploded whilst in Dowson's possession, the ignition having been caused by a naked light, such as a match carelessly used, and that such explosion had shattered the canister and set fire to dust, and had also ignited the shot which had been charged in the stone; and he felt confirmed in his view by all the indications already narrated. He was also of opinion that time man (probably Dowson) had either taken two squibs out to fire, or he had not fired the squib at all in the hole. He did not believe that the powder in the tin canister could have been fired by the initial fire of the shot, and he based this upon the indications found on the outside of the canister, and also the unfired sulphur tip of the squib which he found near the spot. The canister itself was not Dowson's, but belonged to another man named Rutherford.

With the strongest desire to give full force to the theory of Mr. Blackett, that no shot was fired, the limits of this Report, and the verdict of the jury, render it desirable that no further examination of this theory so improbable should be undertaken. In answering the question, was a shot fired in a main haulage road on the night of the 13th April, affirmatively, as regards the weight of evidence, the statement of Mr. Grieves to the jury, that he thought that a shot had (having regard to the circumstances) been fired that night, may be taken as the correct result. By whom, then, was it fired ? The evidence on this part of the case may be very shortly summed up. The jury were not, as their verdict shows, satisfied that Rogerson had personally fired the shot, or directed it to be fired. In this result they were probably justified. It is true his body was found 90 yards from the corner, and 60 yards out-bye from the shot. The management through out the inquiry strenuously resisted the inference that it was his act. it was first abundantly proved on their side by evidence, which, in the absence of Rogerson or any of his men, could not be rebutted, that express orders had been given to Rogerson that no shot was to be fired on a main haulage road without the sanction of the manager himself, or the under-manager; that, although prior to the Act of 1887 the master shifter had such authority as the "competent person" within the rules, yet such general authority had been revoked as far back as 1887, and as he was a reliable man of 22 years experience, it was not believed he had on the 13th April disobeyed orders. Secondly, there was, in the judgment of the managers, no necessity whatever for removing the stone; it was in no one's way, and was not complained of, and did not fall within the specific work directed by Dowson (the under-manager) to be done in the Cross-cut Way, and was remote from the timbering. That the hole drilled was not of the character which a skilled man like Rogerson would have directed. It was likely to have been least effective for its object. Thirdly, Rogerson's tram was close to him. It was that night his duty to go to the Dairy Way and the Jet Way, and they believed from the fact that he was near his tram, and out-bye from the shot-firing, that in all probability he had first gone to the Dairy Way (he had special work there), then returned and gone to the Jet Way (but no one could say what special work he had to do there), and that he had just come down from the Jet Way, and met the full force of the explosion, after the firing of the shot. They relied, in support of this, on his position, and the position of his tram; he was lying head out-bye, face down, and his jacket at the back was burnt. All this was of course bare hypothesis, but as there was no direct evidence, no doubt the jury hesitated to fix the responsibility on a man who could not give his own account, and so the point must be left. At the same time, it is equally difficult to say why any of the stone-men (one or more of them at least must, ex-hypothesi, have drilled the hole) should have put in the cartridge, tamped the charge, and (rejecting the canister theory) fired the shot, for no purpose, that can be ascertained. They were all men of experience, Hodgson had a manager's certificate, and Dowson, the son of the under-manager, and who (it was suggested by more than one witness) may have done it, was not a person who had been found to disregard rules. All of them would be aware that a shot was going to be fired, and surely must have been warned, judging from their positions, for all the five men were found at a distance from the shot, which might be safe under ordinary circumstances, and further, although improper tamping (i.e. , with dust) was suggested (see Mr. Blackett's evidence), yet at the same time the water tub and scoops for throwing water, which were also found, shows that at least some deliberate attempt to damp or lay the dust, so as to render the shot-firing safe, had been used by some one who knew what he was about. With such comments, this branch of the case must be left as finally undetermined.

16. The foregoing considerations practically dispose of the questions under heads of inquiry (see above) (a.), (b.), and (c.). At the same time, the questions also involved under heads (e.), as to Rogerson's competency within the rules to determine (1) the necessity for shot firing, (2) the condition of the place, have to some extent been dealt with. If he was ever so competent the case for the owners was that the firing of a shot on the main haulage way, even outside the caution boards, by the master shifter, was, if he did cause it to be fired, a distinct breach of an order, and a contravention of the rules laid down. If, then, this order to Rogerson, limiting his authority, is established, and the managers believed on this point, it follows that, even though the place was in their judgment a safe one, that is to say, "a place" which was "not dry and dusty" within General Rule 12 and Special Rule 114, so as to involve the conditions and precautions there laid down, yet that to have fired the shot in such place not dry and dusty was in itself a disobedience of the order and rule.