December 24, 1914.

THE COLLIERY GUARDIAN.

1333

WHARNCLIFFE SILKSTONE COLLIERY
EXPLOSION.

Charges Against the Management Dismissed.

Arising out of the investigation regarding the death of
12 men by an explosion at the Wharncliffe Silkstone
Colliery, Tankersley, on May 30 last, proceedings against
officials of the colliery were heard at the Barnsley West
Riding Court on Wednesday, December 16.

The prosecutions instituted by the Home Office aroused
considerable interest, several colliery officials and Mr. S.
Roebuck, assistant secretary of the Yorkshire Miners’ Asso-
ciation, being present.

The defendants were the Wharncliffe Silkstone Colliery
Company; Mr. Geo. Blake Walker, agent of the company;
Mr. Jonathan Wroe, manager of the colliery; and Mr.
Albert Otway, foreman electrician at the colliery. The
informations were laid by Mr. T. H. Mottram, H.M.
inspector of mines for Yorkshire.

The colliery company were charged with unlawfully con-
travening section 33 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in that
safety lamps not of the type approved by the Secretary of
State were used by persons employed in the said mine.
Mr. Walker was charged with a breach of section 33, and
also with a breach of section 29 (1) of the Act, in that an
adequate amount of ventilation wras not constantly produced
in the mine to dilute and render harmless inflammable and
noxious gases to such an extent that all the workings of the
mine were in a fit state for working and passing therein.
Mr. Wroe was charged with a breach of each of the
sections already named, and also with unlawfully contra-
vening No. 132, subsection 1, of the General Regulations of
the Coal Mines Act, 1911, in that in the Athersley Whin-
moor district of the said mine, in which inflammable gas
was likely to occur in quantity sufficient to be indicative of
danger, an apparatus, to wit, an electrical coal cutting
machine, was not protected, worked, and maintained so
that in the normal working thereof there should be no risk
of open sparking. Mr. Albert Otway was charged also
with a breach of No. 132, subsection 1, of the General
Regulations.

Mr. S. Pope (instructed by Mr. W. M. Gichard) prose-
cuted on behalf of the Home Office, and Mr. A. Neal
(Sheffield) defended.

It was agreed to take the charges relating to the coal
cutting machine first, Mr. Pope explaining that he desired
to liberate Mr. R. Nelson, electrical inspector of mines,
who had joined the military service.

Mr. Pope, opening the case, recalled the circumstances
of the accident, and afterwards read the sections governing
the use of electricity in mines. He next said he should
prove that the coal cutter, which was worked by electricity,
was not worked or maintained so that in the normal
working there should be no risk of open sparking. When
he had established by evidence that there was a defect—an
aperture in the cover or casing which enclosed the working
parts of the coal cutter—the only question which remained
was whether or not the manager or the electrician, and, if
so, in what degree, could be held responsible for the non-
maintenance and the working of it in that condition. The
section, Mr. Pope said, placed the responsibility, on the
electrician for the fulfilment of certain duties, whether
carried out by himself or by his assistant, though, of course,
if the duties were discharged by an assistant, the measure
of responsibility would be somewhat different. Other
provisions, however, provided that in the absence of the
electrician for more than one day the manager should
appoint in writing an efficient substitute. From these
provisions the Bench would recognise the position of an
electrician was an important one. He submitted it was not
sufficient for a manager to say that he had appointed the
most capable man he could find in the county to do the
work, but he had to go further than that—he had to be
satisfied that the man appointed understood the work and
his duties, and to see that he carried them out, and to the
best of his power enforce the carrying out of them. This
duty was further emphasised by section 90 of the Act,
which provided that if the person appointed should contra-
vene the Regulations, the agent, owner, or manager of the
mine should be deemed guilty of an offence against the Act,
unless he proved—and the burden of proof was put on the
defendant in these cases—that he had taken all reasonable
means to the best of his power to enforce the Regulations,
preventing any such contravention or non-compliance of it.

Mr. Neal submitted that this did not affect Mr. Wroe.
There was no liability attached to Mr. Wroe, who was
summoned for a breach of Regulation No. 132, subsection 1.

Mr. Pope said he did not understand the objection.

Mr. Neal said the defendant was not summoned under
the Act at all. It was a summons for a breach of the
Regulations.

Mr. Pope submitted if he showed there had been a
breach of the Regulations, then the manager, under
section 90 of the Act, must be held to be guilty of an offence.
The Regulations were part of the Act, and if there was a
breach of the Regulations, there was a breach of the
section of the Act. He had not seen the informations, but
he submitted the offence was against the statute.

The Chairman (Mr. J. T. Field) said they would confine
themselves to section No. 132, but it could be amended.

Mr. Pope said he asked for whatever amendment that
was necessary. It appeared to him to be a technical point
to take.

Mr. Neal objected to any form of amendment.

Mr. Pope urged there must be some misapprehension.
The Regulations became part and parcel of the Act, and if
they were not fulfilled, the manager, by virtue of section 90
of the Act, might be called upon to show the Court that he
was not guilty of the offence, by proving that he had taken
reasonable action to prevent the offence being committed.

Mr. Neal said there was no charge against the defendant
of not enforcing the regulations.

Mr. Pope submitted the proceedings were in order, and
the Bench agreed.

Mr. Pope then proceeded to describe the machine and its
method of working. His evidence was that a defect rendered
the machine capable of igniting gases. He should prove
that the machine was sparking at the time the explosion
occurred, and evidence would be given by survivors that
immediately before the explosion the machine was working.

Mr. H. A. Abbott, inspector of mines for the Yorkshire
and North Midland district, gave evidence of his visit to
the colliery after the explosion. He noticed a light
through the box of the coal cutting machine, and there
was a hole in the half-moon plate. The starting switch of
the machine was in an “ on ” position. The defect

rendered the machine unsafe to be worked. He believed
it was right to say that not 1 per cent, of gas had been
found in the general body of the air in the workings prior to
the explosion. He also agreed that he did not hear at the
inquest that the pit was not well ventilated. He had no
doubt that somebody working the machine had taken the
bolts out of the cover and had neglected to replace them.
There was no sign whatever of any electrical defect in the
machine.

Mr. Robert Nelson (who appeared in uniform), H.M.
electrical inspector of mines, stated he examined the machine
after the explosion, and was of the opinion that the machine
ought not to have been worked in such a condition. Sparking
was inevitable in the working of coal cutting machines
electrically driven, but it was a question of degree. It was
essential that the machine should be securely enclosed. He
believed the cover had been removed because the machine
had been sparking, and no doubt such sparking would
ignite a sufficient quantity of inflammable gas. There was
no electrical defect in the machine. He did not see any
sign of burning inside the box of the machine, but from
experiments made that was not evidence that there had
been no explosion.

Reg. Lang, scraper out, employed at the machine at the
time of the explosion, said the machine was then at work
in charge of Geo. Bailey. Witness felt three gusts of wind
after the explosion, and said the atmosphere became very
warm.

Mr. H. M. Hudspeth, inspector of mines, also gave
supporting evidence.

Mr. Neal submitted the case failed because there was no
evidence of any breach of the Regulations in respect of
which they were charged. The pit was well ventilated,
and gas had never been found to an extent exceeding 1 per
cent., and the point indicative of danger was somewhere in
the region of 5| per cent. There was no evidence that
there was indication of danger. It was also shown that the
machine was not being worked in an abnormal state, but an
abnormal condition. The colliery company and the officials
were willing to take all the responsibility which the law put
upon them, but they could not be liable under this rule for
the abnormal working of the machine. He objected to any
attempt to make these men guilty of a criminal charge
owing to an alleged technical offence, and there was no
justification to attempt to place upon the manager or elec-
trician the sins of other people.

Mr. Pope quoted decided cases to support his contention
that a breach of Regulations became a breach of the Act.

Mr. Neal, in defence on the facts of the case, said it was
proved the machine was free from any electrical or
mechanical defect. Mr. Carswell, who was in his last year
of service for qualification as a mining engineer, and who, he
regretted to say, had fallen in the war, recorded the fact
that on three occasions since May 2, when the machine went
to the pit after being overhauled he had examined the
machine. He asked, therefore, what was complained of,
and why they were summoned on account of that machine
he had not the remotest idea. He asked the Bench to say
that nothing had been discovered why they should commit
these men of a criminal offence on a technicality. On
May 29 there was a new armature put into the machine,
and not because there was anything wrong with it. The
machine was in good working order on the evening previous
to the explosion, and he did not wish to say anything
unkindly of the machine man, Geo. Bailey, who had lost
his life; but on the facts they had to ask why the bolts had
been taken out of the machine cover. When the explosion
occurred Bailey had nearly finished his work, and the only
inference to be drawn was that he wished to adjust the
brushes for some reason.

• Jas. Wm. Bailey, machine man, who worked the machine
on the night before the explosion, said the cover was
properly bolted and in good order. The deputy came and
tested for gas, but there was no trace of it.

Dan Jessop, foreman fitter, gave evidence regarding the
periodical overhauling of the cutting machine. Witness
agreed the machine, as seen after the explosion, had not
been properly maintained. There were two glass windows
on the machine, so that the brushes could be seen. He
placed a plate over one of these, but after the explosion the
plate he found there was not the same, and had been put
on whilst the machine was in the pit. The bolts there
were also not the same. He thought that anyone damaging
the cover of the half-moon would have noticed it. He
agreed the half-moon might have been damaged by the
taking out of the armature.

Mr. Otway also gave evidence, stating he had been
electrician at the colliery for five years. Previous to that he
was electric motor inspector with the Bradford Corporation.
The coal cutting machine in question, when sent into the
pit on May 2, was mechanically and electrically perfect
after having been overhauled. He agreed that the machine
should not have been worked in the condition in which it
was found after the explosion. Even now he did not think
the machine could have been more thoroughly or systematic-
ally examined than it had been.

This concluded the evidence relating to these charges,
and the Bench retired to consider their decision. The
chairman announced the charges would be dismissed, as
they considered there had been no proof of criminal
negligence.

The charges against the colliery company, Mr. Walker,
and Mr. Wroe in regard to safety lamps were next proceeded
with.

Mr. Pope explained though the Order should have applied
from January 1, 1913, compliance of the section wras post-
poned by force of circumstances until August 26, 1913, on
which date an Order was issued approving lamps of some
14 different makes. Up to May 30 last there were three
such Orders, and the point he wished to make was that the
colliery company did not begin to place any orders with a
view to complying with the Regulations until about three
months after the Order was gazetted. When they did set
out to bring themselves into line with statutory require-
ments, they proceeded so leisurely that some nine months
after the Order of the Home Office was gazetted the company
had only obtained about 50 per cent, of the approved type.
On June 9, in reply to a letter from Mr. Mottram, chief
inspector for the district, the colliery company stated that
500 lamps of the approved type had been ordered. He would
prove that although bigger collieries than that of the
defendants in that division had complied with the Act of
Parliament, that nine months after the Order wras made this
company was still 50 per cent, short of its normal require-
ments. It was for the defendants to show that reasonable
steps had been taken to comply with the Order.

Capt. Arthur Desborough, in charge of the Home Office

experimental station with reference to safety lamps, stated
he had had submitted to him approved lamps in use at the
colliery on May 30. They were satisfactory and in good
condition. At the same time, he received unapproved
lamps, but, acting under instructions, he did not examine
these. It was very unlikely that any of the lamps caused
the explosion.

Mr. Neal said, in the hope of shortening the proceedings,
he would state that the colliery company had received per-
mission from Sir Richard Redmayne, H.M. Chief Inspector
of Mines, to use the unapproved lamps until January 1,
1916. They used them with the express authority and
permission of Sir Richard Redmayne. Mr. Geo. Blake
Walker himself had been in constant communication with
the Home Office about it.

Mr. Pope : Of course, I have had the honour of communi-
cating with Sir Richard Redmayne, too. He has never said
anything to me about it. I think, with permission, I shall
have to adjourn the case in order to get instructions.

Mr. Neal : Is it really worth while? We have acted in
good faith, and I suggest that my friend shall go on with
this part of the case.

Mr. Pope : I am satisfied there must be some misunder-
standing, because Sir Richard Redmayne is perfectly
cognisant of the proceedings that are being taken.

The Bench consented to the case being adjourned until
yesterday (Wednesday).

On the resumption of the case, Mr. Pope stated that Sir
Richard Redmayne had stipulated that the lamps should be
submitted to the prescribed test.

Mr. Neal referred to a letter written to Sir Richard
Redmayne by Mr. G. Blake Walker, who said in that com-
munication : “ We have used unbonneted lamps for the last
five-and-twenty years, and on several occasions when there
have been outbursts of gas we believe we have owed our
escape to our use of these lamps.” To that Sir Richard
Redmayne replied that lamps with single gauzes, provided
they passed the test, would be permitted to be used.

Evidence was then adduced as to an unapproved lamp
used by the defendants passing a severe test at Leeds
University; and Mr. Edward W. Teale, of the firm of
Messrs. Teale and Company, stated that he was requested
by Mr. Walker to alter and supply lamps on approved style
as quickly as possible.

Mr. Walker said he understood that the lamps that had
been used at the colliery were permitted for use until
January 1916. This was his reading of the communication
from the Home Office in reply to his letter.

The Chairman said the Bench were satisfied that the
defendants had made all reasonable effort to comply with
the requirements of the Home Office. The charges would
be dismissed.

The charges against Mr. Walker and Mr. Wroe, brought
under section 29 of the Act—that an adequate amount of
ventilation was not constantly produced to render harmless
inflammable and noxious gases in the pit—were then dealt
with.

After Mr. Abbott had detailed experiments made four days
after the explosion, to test the effect of stopping the fan upon
the ventilation, Mr. Mottram said, in his opinion, the venti-
lation was inadequate. It was not a practice to stop a fan
with men in the pit. The manager should see that instruc-
tions were given for all the men to be brought out of the
pit before stopping the fan.

Mr. Neal said neither Mr. Walker nor Mr. Wroe had any
desire to escape from their obligations and responsibilities.
But the section of the Act which governed this matter
provided that the agent or manager should not be rendered
liable for any contravention of the Act if it w’as proved
that such an offence was due to a cause over which he had
no control, and against the happening of which it was
impracticable of him to make provision. To hold Mr.
Walker responsible for detail failures in carrying out the
Regulations was not in the spirit with the Act. For altering
the routine of the stoppage of the fan Mr. Walker took
responsibility, and held that it was a proper thing to do and
consistent with his duty. But when it came to the detail
work of carrying that order out, that was a matter for the
manager, and Mr. Wroe took the responsibility of providing
for the safety of the pit, and the exit of the men before the
fan was changed on to another machine.

Mr. Jonathan Wroe said he had been certificated manager
of the pit for 17| years, and had worked at Wharncliffe for
42 years. His evidence was to the effect that when the
change for the stoppage of the fan was made, he emphasised
its importance, and gave the necessary instructions to the
under-managers. He considered he took the necessary
steps to ensure the men being out of the pit before the
changing of the fan. The deputies should see that the men
went out of the pit.

Further evidence was given by under-managers, deputies,
and an overman, all of whom said that the men were plainly
instructed to be out of the pit before the fan was stopped,
and that the changed time of that operation was made clear.

The Bench, after retiring for consultation, dismissed the
summonses. They came to that decision on the evidence.

The application to the United States Inter - State
Commerce Commission by the Eastern railways for an
increase in their freight rates has been granted in part.
The Commission has fixed a schedule of freight rates,
under which certain increases are granted in the eastern
classification of territory, which includes all railways north
of the Potomac and Ohio rivers between the Atlantic
seaboard and the Mississippi. This decision has been
reached after consideration of a renewal of the application
for higher rates which the Eastern railways made on
November 19. The Commission’s previous decision on the
subject was made on September 1. A general increase of
rates has now been allowed in the case of all commodities,
with certain specified exceptions namely, bituminous coal
and coke, anthracite coal, and iron ore, and rates held by
unexpired orders. The Commission has also decided that
in certain grades of traffic going both by rail or by steamer
on the Great Lakes, while existing differential rates
between various Atlantic ports are preserved, the rates
between any two of these ports may be inci eased up to
5 per cent. All other increases of rates applied for by the
Eastern railways have been granted.