February 20, 1914.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

419

THE SENGHENYDD DISASTER.

Home Office Enquiry Ended.

The Home Office enquiry into the circumstances attending
the Senghenydd disaster was concluded on the 13th inst.
On the previous day evidence was given by Mr. D. Watts
Morgan, the miners* agent, who took a prominent part in
the rescue operations. Detailing the indications of the
force of the explosion, Mr. Watts Morgan said he would
have expected to find signs of radiation at the lamp room if
the explosion had originated there. In the Bottanic district
it was a peculiar thing that the men on the right-hand of
the road were dead while those on the top were alive-
In the same faces, too, they found some bodies burnt and
others not.

Witness expressed his disapproval of the present form of
the firemen's report book. The percentage of stationary
gas should be given and the dimensions of the body of gas,
and the blowers indicated. There should be a more copious
supply of water at all South Wales collieries, especially
when they remembered that in all the late explosions fire
had broken out. In his experience of 11 explosions there
was no clearly established case where they could do more
than prove the seat of the explosion by subsequent indica-
tions, and in 10 of those 11 there was a conflict of opinion
between the expert and the lay mind.

Open signalling wires should be prohibited, and lamp
stations should not be permitted underground. Neither
did he agree with electric machinery for relighting lamps
unless there was a competent man in charge and the
regulations strictly carried out. The hope of the future
was in a system of zcning, and he would welcome the
erection of harbours of refuge in chambers with supplies of
oxygen at convenient spots. Mr, Kirkhouse, of Wattstown,
worked upon this idea for some time, but his difficulty was
the conveying of air in pipes underground. Now they had
cylinders of oxygen.

Another witness, John Powell, of Crumlin, complained
that the superintendents of rescue brigades were not
consulted, even by the consultative committee. The rescue
brigade had been brought from Crumlin, kept sitting in the
colliery offices idle while workmen were alive in the Bottanic
district waiting to be rescued, and they were sent back home
without doing anything.

Earth Tremors and Safety Doors.

Mr. T. A. Southern, late H.M. inspector of mines, and
principal of the Universal Mining School, Cardiff, gave
evidence as to the possibility of outbursts of gas in collieries
having been caused by earth tremors and earth shakes.
Witness said he had obtained a seismograph record from
Mr. J. J. Shaw, of Birmingham-road, West Bromwich, for
the week including the day of the explosion (October 14),
and this showed three tremors on the 11th, one on the 12th,
and another on the 14th, commencing at 8.27 and continuing
with a larger motion until 10 o'clock. It was feasible‘that
the earlier and larger shocks might have produced a
condition of instability. Mr. Southern further pointed out
that on May 23,1901, there was a great volcanic eruption in
Java, and the first Ssnghenydd explosion occurred at 5.20
on the morning of May 24. He thought there should be an
official investigation into this matter, and that the list of
dangerous occurrences reported to the Home Office should
include any considerable outburst of gas as a “ statutory "
dangerous occurrence.

Mr. Southern produced a plan of the colliery showing
points at which he considered safety or life-saving doors
would be advisable. He believed such doors as these would
have saved at least 500 lives from fires and afterdamp during
the last few years, and that from the Bottanic district every
man would have been brought out alive if these safety doors
had been introduced at Senghenydd.

Chemical Treatment of Timber.

Mr. F. Llewellyn Jacob, sub-agent of the Ferndale
Collieries, gave evidence in support of the lamp-room theory.
Mr. Jacob said he thought they were on the right lines in
the direction of safety with the stonedust theory. The
chemical treatment of timber with a view to prevent fires
might also be enquired into.

The Commissioner said the Government was making
enquiries in that direction, and his colleague, Mr. Williams,
was also looking into the matter.

Witness said that on the assumption that a mild explosion
occurred in the Mafeking district and was followed by a big
explosion in the Lancaster level, it might obliterate the
indications of the first explosion except at certain angles in
the roadway. In reply to Mr. Smillie, Mr. Jacob said that if
in his colliery he found several entries of“ Cap " and “ Crossed
off" on the fireman's report book, he would regard it as
indicative of danger, but there would not be an entry
showing gas at an explosive point or an accumulation.

On the concluding day, evidence was given by Mr. Thomas
Griffiths, M.E., of Cymmer, who also supported the lamproom
theory. Witness agreed that there was less danger in a
lamp station on the surface than underground, but he saw
no danger in having a lamp station underground, near the
pit mouth, provided there was arching inbye and outbye,
except for the remote possibility of a blower breaking out
in the downcast shaft or the falling-in of the pit. Some
discussion took place in regard to three lamps found in or
near the lamp station. The Commissioner thought no one

should have touched these lamps until an official note had
been taken by someone in authority as to where and in what
condition they were found.

Replying to Mr. Thomas Richards, M.P., the witness said
it would take him all his life to understand all the
regulations. He believed many of them were harassing,
and the manager was often compelled to spend hours of his
time in reading and initialling reports, when he ought to be
supervising the work.

Mr. John Kane, agent of the United National Collieries,
Wattstown, next gave evidence supporting that given by
Mr. Jacobs as to the indications of force.

Mr. David Hannah, agent of the Ferndale Collieries, was
of the same opinion. In cross-examination by Mr. Clem
Edwards, he said that he was one of the experts who drew
up the memorandum. It would have been unwise to let the
rescue brigades enter the returns. He admitted that at
that time he was not thoroughly conversant with the whole
of the plans of the colliery, but he knew that men had
reported earlier in the day that it was impossible to enter
the Bottanic, and that this view was confirmed by him when
he put his head into the return by the main return. Men
could not have lived there for five minutes. They did not
consider getting into the Bottanic by No. 1 North round the
east.

Mr. J. P. Gibbon, Maesteg, followed, and he supported the
system Of open cogging.

Edward Edwards, a timberman, said he never found gas
in the Lancaster level before the explosion.

John Waddon, the son of the electrician, gave evidence as
to the number of cells in use on the Mafeking hard heading,
and said the current in use there before the explosion was
eight volts. He never had a battery giving nine volts, for
he did not start with more than six cells each of one volt,
and some of them were below one.

Two workmen, James Williams and William James, said
they never heard of gas being brushed away from the faces,
and the Commissioner observed that these witnesses had
satisfied him personally that there was no brushing of gas
in the colliery.

Dr. Atkinson’s Evidence.

Dr. W. N. Atkinson, H.M. divisional inspector of mines,
ex-president of the South Wales Institute of Engineers, was
next called. He gave, in detail, the indications of force
which he noticed on descending the mine at Senghenydd
shortly after the explosion and on subsequent occasions of
examination. In his opinion the Mafeking incline was the
point of origin and the first blast was outwards. He
believed gas came away with a fall and was ignited by a
spark from the electric signalling or from falling stones and
rocks. He could not form any more definite conclusion, but
he was unable to accept the lamproom theory, because, in
his opinion, the preponderance of the indications was
against it. He did not attribute the gas in the Mafeking
hard heading to blowers in the Mafeking district, for if his
theory was the correct one there must have been an
outburst in the hard heading.

Witness said that the period during which the colliery
had been exempted from having means to immediately
reverse the air current expired a fortnight before the
explosion.

One lesson of the explosion was that no naked lights
should be allowed underground. He would advocate that
all lamp stations should be on the surface. Pending further
investigations, he would prohibit the use of electric
signalling wires with a voltage above five or six. He added
that he desired to qualify any impression that he was not
in favour of rescue apparatus. Every encouragement
should be given for its use, and rescue brigades were
worthy of every honour, but he had not such implicit faith
in the apparatus as many people had. The nearer the pit
a rescue brigade was the better. Senghenydd had, he said,
been inspected five times in 1913 before the explosion. He
admitted that if the collieries were inspected more frequently
there would be a sort of bracing up all round so far as the
officials were concerned.

Mr. J. Dyer Lewis, senior inspector of mines, said he had
experience of all South Wales explosions during the past
20 years, and he corroborated the evidence of Dr. Atkinson.
Witness regarded open cogging as the very best method
of closing cavities.

Mr. Greenland Davies, mines inspector, said he was of
opinion that the seat of the explosion was in the Mafeking
hard heading. A fall of roof occurred, bringing down gas
and causing a spark. Witness produced a sketch, showing
where the red lamp near the lamp station was found, and
he said that Dr. Atkinson picked it up in the Lancaster
level. The Commissioner said that was quite different from
the evidence they had already had, and it was more
unfavourable to the owners' theory.

Mr. J. M. Carey, H.M. inspector of mines, said that he
had visited the mine four times during the year before the
explosion, and the general state of the mine was excellent.
He did not disagree with Dr. Atkinson's evidence, but the
impression on his mind was that the origin of the explosion
was somewhere near the pit. In order to make a complete
inspection of the colliery it would take him a week.

The President said this exhausted all the evidence, and
at the close he would like to thank all for the very great
assistance they had given the Court in extracting the
evidence. The proceedings then terminated.

Counsel will address the Commissioner and the Assessors
at the Home Office to-day (Friday).

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—February 16.

Before the Lord Chancellor and Lords Dunedin,
Atkinson, Moulton and Parker.

Williams Brothers v. E. T. Agius Limited.—This was
an appeal from an order of the Court of Appeal by which
was allowed the appeal of Ed. T. Agius Limited from an
order of Mr. Justice Bailhache on an award at arbitration.
The arbitration was under a contract in writing, dated
June 25, 1910, whereby Ed. T. Agius Limited agreed to
sell to Williams Brothers a cargo 4/5,000 tons New Pelton
and Holmside unscreened gas coal, to be shipped in
November 1911, five days' grace to be allowed, at the price
of 16s. 3d. net c.i.f. Genoa or Savona, or Spezia or Leghorn.
The dispute between the parties in the arbitration was
whether Ed. T. Agius Limited were bound to deliver the
Novembsr cargo, and if so bound, the measure of damages.
The question raised for the opinion of the House on the
appeal was whether under all the circumstances of the case
the amount of damages payable by Ed. T. Agius Limited
was .£1,631 5s. as contended by Williams Brothers, or
£618 15s. as maintained by Ed. T. Agius Limited. The
umpire decided that Ed. T. Agius Limited were bound
by the contract to deliver the November cargo of coal, and
that in breach of the contract Ed. T. Agius Limited never
did deliver it, or any part thereof within contract time, or
in fact at all. That at the date of the breach of the con-
tract the market price of the coal in question was 23s. 6d.
per ton. That on or about October 28, 1911, Williams
Brothers sold by one Conti, their agent in Genoa,
through one Colonna, to one P. Ghiron, a cargo of
coals on the terms of a sale note dated October 28, 1911,
from Colonna to Ghiron, and that Williams Brothers
intended to re-sell to Ghiron the November cargo due to
them from Ed. T. Agius, and appropriated the cargo to
their contract with Ghiron. That in November 1911,
Ghiron sold to Ed. T. Agius the cargo referred to at the
price of 20s. per ton, and by endorsement on the sold note
ceded all his rights and liabilities under his contract with
Williams Brothers for the sum of .£225, being Is. per ton on
4,500 tons above the price which Ghiron had agreed to pay
to Williams Brothers, and that this sum of £225 was paid
to Ghiron on or about December 19, 1911.

It was contended, on behalf of Williams Brothers, that
the true measure of damages was 7s. 3d. per ton, being the
difference in price between 16s. 3d. (the contract price) and
23s. 6d. (the market price at the date of the breach)—4,500
tons at 7s. 3d. = .£1,631 5s. For Ed. T. Agius Limited, on
the other hand, it was maintained that the true measure of
damages was 2s. 9d. per ton, being the difference between
16s. 3d. (the contract price) and 19s. (the price of the coals
sold by Williams Brothers to Ghiron—4,500 tons at 2s. 9d.
= £618 15s.

Mr. Adair Roche, K.C., opened the case for the appellants
and contended that the true measure of the damages
recoverable by Williams Brothers for the non-delivery of
the coal in question by Ed. A. Agius Limited was the
difference between the contract price and the market price
at the date of the breach, and any further dealings by
Williams Brothers with the coal were irrelevant to the
question of the true measure of damages. If any such
further dealings were relevant, by the terms of their
contract with Ghiron, Williams Brothers were not bound to
deliver any coals to Ghiron if Ed. T. Agius Limited failed
to deliver a cargo of coals to Williams Brothers, and
accordingly Williams Brothers were not in default to
Ghiron, and the latter had no right to cede to Ed. T. Agius
Limited under the contract. He submitted that the
reasons given by Mr. Justice Bailhache and Lord Justice
Hamilton, and their judgments in favour of the contentions
of Williams Brothers, were correct, and that the majority
of the Court of Appeal were wrong.

Mr. Leek, K.C., submitted that the only damage which
the appellants in fact sustained by the non-shipment of
this coal was the difference between 16s. 3d. and 19s. per
ton, and that the appellants were only entitled to be put,
by way of damages, in the same position as if the respon-
dents had shipped the cargo under their contract with the
appellants.

Their lordships reserved judgment.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE.

KING’S BENCH DIVISION.—February 10.

Before Mr. Justice Bankes and Mr. Justice Avory.

Minimum Wage Act: A Question of Jurisdiction.

Fairbanks y. Florence Coal and Iron Company.—This
was an appeal by the plaintiff in the action from a decision
of Judge Ruegg at the Stoke County Court. The action
was brought to recover £2 6s. 6d., a week's wages, and the
judge had decided that the dispute was one which the
Minimum Wage Act intended to go before the Wages
Board, and accordingly, as he had no jurisdiction, non-
suited the plaintiff. Fairbanks was employed as a butticker,
and entitled by custom of the colliery to an extra wage of
6d. a day. The wages in the North Staffordshire coalfield,
by an award of the Conciliation Board, were fixed at 7s. 3d.
a day. The defendants had tendered a less sum than 7s. 9d.,
saying there had been certain irregularities of work or
certain inefficiencies. Counsel's point was that the wage