Pioneer

Senghenydd Prosecu- tions. DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATES. MINERS' LIVES AT lil-L EACH. I The CrphjUy (Hhyn?ney Valley, South WaJe?) magistrates on Saturday delivered judgment in <onnection witii the pro,?,-?.utions instituted by Dr. W. AtkuMon. Divisional Mhjea Inspector for Wale?. on behalf ?f tl? Home Of- nee. against the ma-na?er and owners of the Senghenydd Colliery Is the re- sult of the inquiry into the causes of the disaster which occurred in the Senghenydd mine on October 14 last, killing 439 men and boys. 'Hie magistrates sitting were Messrs. W. Ware (chairman), C. E. Forester Walker, and D. Prosser. Messrs. Albert Parsons and Clement h/lwards, M. P., appeared as counsel for the prosecution, acting on instructions from Messrs. Yachell and Co., Cardiff while Mr. Charley Kenshole, of Aber- dare, again appeared for the defence. Mr. J. F. Ivor Parrv (of the firm of WLit-er 'forgin Bruce and Ni- cholls) watched the ca.se in the inte- rest*. of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. It will be recalled that the cases came before the magistrates onr June 17 and July 4. The manager and agent of the com- pany is Mr. Edward Shaw, and the owners are the L'wis Merthyr Consoli- dated Collieries. Ltd., with registered offices at Cardiff. m' THE DSION" 1 I he Chairman, delivering judgment, said: "There are -1 informations, J- against Mr. Edward Shaw. as manager of the company, and four against the company itself. I will deaf with these against the manager first. During tiie hearing these 17 charges were prac- tically reduced to 10. 1 will deal with these seriatim. The first information alleges that the defendant Shaw, being the manager of frlie mine, did not appoint in writ- ing for the purpose a competent person to examine at the surface the safetv tamps to be used at the mine. It was admitted by he defendant that no such appointment was, in fact, made in writ- ing after the Act of Parliament came into operation on July 1. 1912, hut that he relied on an appointment of a lampman named Morse, made in 1905. at the time the colliery was taken over by the company. We a.re not satisfied that Morse or any other person had been appointed in writing before Octo- ber 14. 1913. a-s required by Section 34, Sub-section 1. of the Act, and the 35th general regulation. We consider the omission somewhat technical, and we think the case will be met by our ordering the defendant to pay a fine of Z2, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment in the second di. vision in defaut of distress. The second information is for not appointing in writing for the purpose a competent person to unlock the sate- ty lamps to be used at the mine as re- quired by Section 34, Sub-section 3, of the Act, and to this charge the defend- ant. through his solicitor, has pleaded guilty, ami we fine im £ 2 with the al-; ternative of 14 days' imprisonment in the second division. "Tlw third informafion charges the defendant with not appointing in writ- ing an electrician at the mine. Itwa? prov? to us that Mr. Waddon had! been duly appointed a,s the electrician at the colliery—and we therefore dis- miss the information. I now pass to the information num- bered 4, 5 and 6. which charge the de- fendant with not keeping at the mine a book and entering therein, or caus- ing to be entered therein, the barome- ter. t hermometer, and hygrometer readings. The three charges were grouped and taken as one at the hear- Ilig fol- failing to provide a book. etc. To this the defendant has pleaded guilty. No evidence was placed before us ns to whether or not readings were in fact taken and a record thereof kept, although not entered ia the pro- per book. We fine the defendant 15, with the alternative of 14 days' impri- sonment in the second division. THE AIR CURRENT. 1 he next information is that num- bered 8: For not providing and main- taining in a condition to be put into immediate operation adequate means for reversing the air- current as requir- a .l l a's ed by Section 31. Sub-section 3 of the Act.' This is an important provision of the Act, and I will read it: After the 1st day of January. 1913, or such later date as in view of the circumstances of the mine may be fixed by the inspector of the division, there shall in every mine in which a mechanical contrivance for ventilat- ing is used, be provided and main- tained in a condition to be put into immediate operation adequate means for reversing the air current. Oonsidera-ble evidence was given on this point. The appointed day was January 1, 1913; the defendant, how- ever. applied to the inspector for an extension of the time beyond that date for carrying out this provision of the Act. Now, the first letter put in is dat- ed April 2.1, 1913 (nearly four months after the appointed day), written by the defendant to Dr. Atkinson. the divisional inspector of the mines, and in iluit letter the defendant applied for a. six months' extension. After some correspondence, and an interview bet- ween the defendant and Mr. Carcv (a sub-inspector of mines) at the colliery. Dr. Atkinson, on September 16. 1913. granted an extension up to September 30. 1913. and at the same time stipu- lating tliat after that date there should lie provided the necessary means tor reversing the air current. "It was proved to our satisfaction that on October 4, 1913, the work had not been carried out, and that, at all events, it was not completed. There was pa non-compliance with the Act, and we fine the defendant 110, with I the alternative of one month's impri- sonment in the second division. COAL-DUST DANGERS. I "The next information against The defendant are those numbered 10 and 11. which were taken as one at the hearing. Number 10 charges the de- fendant that he did not cause to b*« systematically cleared the floor, roof, and sidffi of the roads of the mine so as to prevent as far as practicable, coal dust accumptilating. Consider- able export evidence was given on both sides dealing with zhia troublesome 4ind difficult question, both as to the condi- tion of this particular mine and the means adopted, or which might have been tried, for carrying out the re- quirements of the Act. The provision is for the prevention, as far as practi- cable, of the accumulation of coal dust on the floor, roof, and sides of the roads. It was proved to us, and was, indeed, admitted by the prosecution, that the roads had been kept well wa- tered. We are satisfied that the de- fendant had endeavoured by means of brushing, compressed air blowing, by using stone dust. and by watering to clear the roof and the sides of the roads from coal dust. The brushing and compressed-air me- thods were abandoned by the defend- ant for some four or six months prior to October 14, 1913, because they were not found to be satisfactory. EXPERTS IN CONFLICT. I It was stated by the defendant, i and not denied by the prosecution, that he had done a good deal in the way of stone arching, but that the arches got crushed out. With regard to the seve- ral methods of brushing, compressed air blowing, and dusting, we had a great deal of export, evidence. That evid- ence was conflicting, the witnesses on the one side advocating all or some of those methods, while those on the other side were just as trongly of the opposite opinion. Some of the witnesses for the pro- secution admitted that in certain cases it might be dangerous, a.nd Dr. Atkin- son himself admitted that as a practi- cal man, apart from the Act of Par- liament. he would not have advised it. It was further stated in evidence that the method of brushing had not been adopted in the South Wales coalfield, while witnesses on both sides admitted that watering the roofs and sides in this mine would have been dangerous and was impracticable. "No regulations have as yet been laid down by the Home Office for deal- ing with the dust, question. With the conflicting evidence which as been gi- ven before us, we are placed in a posi- tion of great difficulty in arriving at our decision, but having given the question our serious and careful con- sideration, we have come to the con- clusion that the manager had done all that was reasonably practicable in the circumstances to prevent the accumula- tion of coal dust, and we therefore dis- miss the information. With regard to the informations Nos. 12 and 13. which was taken to- gether as one. No. 13 charged the de- fendant with not causing to be made a report on the condition as to ooal dust of the roads of the mine. and on the steps taken to mitigate danger arising therefrom in a book to be kept at the mine. The report book used at the colliery was put in. and it showed that this was not entered up daily as it should have been in order to comply with the Act. This is an important book and is supposed to contain a bailv record We fine the defendant L5, with the alternative of 14 days' imprisonment in the second division, in default of payment. "Informations Nos. 14, 1.5 and 16. --wp will leave these for the moment, iintill we have dealt with those num- bered 20 and 21. I IMPROPER SAFETY-LAMP I GLASSES. ?.? 1. "e now come to ..No. HI, ior using safety-lamps not d the approved type, [t was admitted by the prosectuion that the lamps in use at this colliery were of the approved type, but they complained that the glasses in use were not approved. With regard to those, we are satis- fied that the defendant did all that he could possibly have done to procure glasses of the approved type. He had 12 dozen from one uiaker and 60 dozen from another. He stated that when he gave the orders for them he thought he would lie supplied wpith approved glases. The last, lie had was in Au- gust, 1913, and lie found when they were delivered they did not bear the approved mark. He told us he had great difficulty in procuring approved glasses after the issue of the Home Of- fice Circular of August 26, 1913. as the manufacturers were unable to meet the demand, and it was admitted by Dr. Atkinson that there had been great difficulty in getting glasses of the ap- proved type owing to the great demand for them. The difference in the wst appeared to be very trifling, so that the manager's neglect to procure the approved tvi-x- would not have been for the purpose of saving expense. In .ne circumstances we feel justified in dismissing the information. AIR .ESTS. I This brings us to the canst; of the. information against the manager — viz., numbers 20 and 21, which were bracketted and taken together. No. 21 charges the defendant with not caus- ing to be measured at the mine the quantity of air in the main current and in every split, and at the points set forth and described in the 77th ge- neral regulation of the General Regu- lations, dated Julv 10, 1913. These regulations were published in the "London Gazette" on May 15, 1912. and they were appointed to come into force OIl the expiration of 12 months af- ter that date, which would carry ua on to September 16. 1913. The 77th regulation determined the points at which the quantity of air should be measured, in pursuance, of Section 29, sub-see-tion 2, of t,he Act. The points are: — I (a) In the main intake airways of t every seam as near as practicable to I the downcast shaft. (b) In every split aa near aa practi- cable to the point at which the split commenecs; ajid (c) In each ventilating district at or as near as practicable to a point 100 yards back from the first work- ing place at the working face which the air enters. Section 29 provides that this shall be done at least once in every month, and as the regulation only came into force on September 16, 1913, the man- ager had until October 16, 1913, to comply with the Act two days later than tho date of the alleged offence. We therefore dismiss this information, and the dismissal involves the informa- tions 14, 15 and 16 under the same section. u AGAINST THE COMPANY. e Have now disposed of ail the information held against the manager, and we come to those preferred against the compapny, which are four in num- ber. The first is in for not providing a book for entering the readings of the barometer, thermometer, and hygro- meter; the second for failing to pro- vide means for reversing the air cur- rent at the mine the third for failing to provide a book for the monthly en- try of measurements of the quantity of air in the mine; and the fourth for al- lowing safety lamps not of the approv- ed type to be used in the mine. It becomes necessary to consider how far, if at all, the company i.. liable in the circumstances. We have referred to the judgments in several cases cited bv Mr. Kenshole —Baker v. Carter, 1878. 3 Ex. D. 132; Stokes v. Checkland. 1893. 57 J.P. 232: and Stokes v. Michiston. 1902. 67 J.P. 615. We have also referred to the cases cited by Mr. Ivor Bow ell—David v. Britannic Mert-hvr Coal Companv (1909. L.P. 2. K.B.Div. 146, and Wat- kins v. Naval Collierv Companv, 1912. J. 1056. It has been proved to our satisfac- tion, and we find that the defendant company had taken all necessary steps to enforce the Act and the rules. They appointed a competent certificated manager, who was also their agent, and he had the sole control, management, and direction of the colliery that the directors of the company took no part. nor did they interfere with the man- agement that the company made all the financial and other provision neces- sary to enable the manager to carry out his duties; that the offences alleged in these proceedings, so far as they have been proved, were committed without the knowledge, consent or con- nivance of the company. It was also proved before us that the Act and re- gulations were duly published at the colliery. We therefore dismiss the four informations against the company. On the question of costs, it is ne- cessary to specify the amount in each oonviction. And we order the defend- ant Shaw to pay £ 5 5s. 0-tg on each conviction. -u AN ArrtAL, I Mr. Kenshole asked tor costs against the prosecution in the matter of dis- missed cases. The Chairman replied that they could not entrtain the application. Mr. A. Parsons intimated that there might be the possibility of an appeal after the decision had been before the Home Office authorities, and asked the Bench to state a ease on the summons which had been dismissed referring to coal diist. The Chairman said that if an appeal was decided upon, Mr. Parsons should lodge application and state a case in writing within the statutory seven days. —"Daily Citizen. I