732 Jrit11ess-Dr. J. R. M. Robertson,
u Mo.rch,
1903.
2l3!0. Nr. Wadi'.] I object. Tba~ is llimpl_v an nnswer to a Jong s~ring of questions which were aeked the witnN'S. The l ook was the 01d1nary book kept under the Coal. Mmes Act. . . . 2-132 l. His H unor.] Tho only object of this evidence would be lo induce the witness to modify his own opinion.
· Mon day.J [The Commission, at 4 p.m., adjourned until 12 o'clock the f o1!owing JUOSDAY, 0 Mil.ROH, 1903, 12 NOON.
[T!tc Commission met at tlic Supreme Court, King-street, Sydney.] t)rc~ent:-
C. E. R. MURRAY, D. A. W. ROBERTSON, EsQ., COMMISSIOXER.
E SQ.,
I
D.C.J.
{ P RESIDEK.T). D. RITCHIE, Es~.• CoMMISSIONEn.
Mr. Bruce Smith, Barrister-at-Law, instructed by }\fr. W ood, Crown Solicitor's Office, appeared on behalf of the Crown. Mr. A. A. Atkinson, Chief Inspector of Ccal-mines, assisted l'.Ir. Bruce Smith. M r. A. A. Lysaght, Solicitor, appeared on behalf of(a) the representatives of deceased miners, wheelers, &c., (victi:ns of the explosion); (b) the employees of the Mount Kembla. Colliery (miners, wheelers, &c.); and (c) tho llJa.warra Colliery Employees' Association (the Southern Miners' Union). 1\1r. C. G. \Vadc, Barrister a.t-Law, inst ructed by l\Iessrs. Curtiss and Barry, Solicitors, was present on behalf of the l\Iount Kembla Coal and Oil Corupany (Proprietors of t he Mount Kerubla Mine).
(Mr. J. Garlick, Secretary to the Commission, was pr~sent to take sh0rthanu notes of tl:e evidence and proceedings.) Dn. R OBE.RTSO~. pre'i'iuusly swor n, was further examined as -qnder :-
Crnss-examina.tion by Mr. Lysaght:2:1,322. Q. You tolJ Mr. ·w ade that "subsequently to the disaster wo wore naturall.v casting about in e,·ery possible woy to account for it" ;-when did you fix on this suggestion about the heated hlast oE win<l? A. I do not think that I could gire you any particular time; but I began to think about it-I began to study it very earnestly; and then J wrote t o sC1me friends in tbe north of England ; and they suggested that I might see Mr. Dickenson's suggestion as to the Udston explosion. • 213:!3. Q. I t is clear, then, that you could n ot have had this wind theory until after the month of ~eptembcr? A. Yes. The very day that we examined, we could see nothing beyoud the effects of a wi nu blast; but we coul d not account, Mr. Lysaght, for the carbonic oxide. We knew that there must have been heat; and, probably, some of the examiners t hought that tbere must have been fire. 2-132 t Q. You said that the day you examined the mine you formed the theory of the wind blast? A. No theory nt all-tbe opinion. :!-l-:32.;. Q. Do you mean the first da.v that you went in ? A. Yes. 24H2G. Q. 1'he night"of the di!>Mter ? A. ~o. 24327,. Q. The 4th of August r A. The 4th of August. 2 rn2s. Q. But on that day you liad not seen one.quarter of the evidences of force? A. I hnd seen t bem al ,. 2-:1,l29. Q. Did not you tell Mr. WaJe that it wns o,Ying to the suggestion you got from a friend in the north of England that you looked into t hi::1 theory of Mr. Dickenson'.:;? A. No. I do not know how it may h:i.,·o been conveyed; but I <lid not quilo mean that. I suggested the matter to Mr. F oster of Newc:i..stle-on-Tyne; and, in replying-, he l>aid that it was not a new matter, but thnt it had been rath~r a fav ourite theory of l\1r. Dickenson'!', by which he bad accounted for, or suggested the r eason of, some of the great eollit!ry explosions. 2!-:3:JO. Q. Now, you ha.re no other suggestion lo make to the Commission concerning the cause? A.. No, I ha'"c no other sugJe~tion. :! l "i31. Q. Let me clParly understand, now, what it is you do suggest: it is that the fall , you say, of 4.4 square yards - - [In!f"1·ruptl'(l] ? A. FvrLy-four yards sq uare. 2~332. Q.11ho fi.11 of 4t yarJs sq uare in tho 4Lb Right forced out air at n \'elo,;ity of 700 miles per hour? A. About that. 2433,3. Q. Whit:h generated he:it by reason of lho fri ction? A. AuJ compression. 2-1'l3-t, Q. By reason of the fri ction and the compression ;-do you want to add anything to that? A. No. ~.1,a~.;. Q. Do you know that that is what Mr. Seller~ has tolJ 1ho Commi~sion? A .. I think it very lik ~ly. 243.~6. Q. And do JOU know thnt l\1r. Sellers admitted that he ma.fo his calculation on the ass umption thnt the roof fell i11 vacuo? A. No, I did uot know that. 21337. Q. I>id you know that? A. No, [ diJ uot kuow that . It woulu be of no use to make that l!ll,!?gestion, because - - [Interrupted ]. 24:33S. Q. One moment, please ; - if Mr. Sc:llers slated that his calculations were made on the assumption that the. roof f ell in vacnn, the result;1 would be manifestly absurd. would they not? A. It is :ill assum_pttun: Iu any case, I really c:rnnot understand why anybody could suggP,st that the roof fell in the 4th Right rn vacuo. 2·.l:339. - <?· But I am puttiog it to 5ou that, iE l\Jr. Sc:Ilers admitted that he made his calculation on ·the a..;surnp_twn. that the roof ditl _fall in vacuo, his conclusions woulJ be manifestly absurd-would they not? A. I thmk m that branch of 1t probably they would; but that is only one branch of the calculations. In the other branch, of course, be aE1sumed a press~re; and theI.l - - [Interrupted]. 24340.
J