BLAMELESS!

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1310, 13 December 1911, Page 4

BLAMELESS!

THE CASE OF CAPTAIN ATWOOD, ELINGAMITE WRECK. N'OT ONE CHARGE BORNE OUT. "Wo have dealt with the Iwo queslions—and Uio threo charges under each—which have been made against thu master, and wo have comu to I lie conclusion that the captain must bo acquitted of the charges made against him. In coming to our conclusion, we are not making any reflection on the finding of tho previous court.' Since that finding, a most important mistake in the cliart has boon discovered, and now soundings have been taken. Also, as to one or two points, fresh evidence brought forward at.tho rehearing has cleared up matters which, at tho first, inquiry, were left in doubt." These were tho concluding remarks in the report of tho Court of Inquiry into tho loss of tho Elingamite. The court consisted of the Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout), Captain K. B. Smith, and Captain Chrisp. The Elingamite was wrecked in a fog at tho Threo Kings on November 0, 1902, and 43 lives were lost. The Court of Marine Inquiry, appointed in connection with tho disaster, brought in findings adverse to Captain E. B. Atwood, who was in command of tho vessel. Recently, however, it was discovered that tho islands were incorrectly charted, and, in consequence of this, Captain Atwood was granted a rehearing. This rehearing was commenced on Saturday morning. Tho Solicitor-General (Mr.--J? W. Salmond) appeared for the Marine Department, and Mr. T. M. Wilt'ord; with him Mr. W. J. Cracroft Wilson, appeared for Captain Atwood.

Tho Six Charges. 1. Was the captain guilty of negligent navigation? Under this issue charges were formulated as follow:— (a) That- he ran at an excessive speed through a fog. (b) That he took no account of the risk of deviation through northerly currents. (c) That he did not sound. 2. Did ho fail in his duty as master after the wreck? Under this issue charges were formulated as follow:— (a) That ho allowed the boats to leave without'compasses or provisions. •'.:: "(b) That he allowed Captain Eeid's boat to leave without its full complement of passengers, (c) That he did not stand by the rafts. No. 1, The Ship's Speed. In dealing with tlie charge relating to negligent navigation, tho Court found:— "Tho fact that tho chart was wrong must bo looked upon as a matter of grave concern in this case. In dealing with ,this question, we have first to say that, ;in our opinion, when a charge of negiigenco is mailo against a master in tho conduct of a ship, it must be proved just as clearly as if it had been made in an action against a person for some negligent act. It "has been laid down in many cases, both in England and in Xew Zealand, that, if tho ovidence is two-faced—that is, if it may point to negligence, and also to due caro—then the case of negligence is not proved. The first negligent act alleged is that Captain Atwood ran at an excessive speed through-the tog.. The vessel was assumed to bo making'l2 knots an hour from Saturday at noon until 10 0 clock on Sunday. She was in the open sea away from .land. Further, it is said that, at limes, though it was foggy or hazy during all the period from Saturday afternoon till 10 on Sunday morn"JsVyet you could at times see live miles ahead; at other times two miles ahead Ihe captain took the ' precaution of whistling in case of collision, but he had no reason to bolievo that he was near land or injury could be dono to his S !"P'. »ci do_ not think, therefore (considering the distanco that could be scon ahead) that going at that rate of speed could bo deemed negligent navigation." S,,n,ltwJ rt i ! ssum « l th <it after 10 a.m. on hunday tho steamer was going at not more ■than 4i knots, and hold that this was notan excessive speed in the circumstances.

;■ Nos, 2 and 3, Deviation Caused by Current, and Sounding. "As to tho second charge-that he hid taken no account..ol the" risk of devia turn from northerly currents it has To 'he considered that, in the .'New Zealand Pilot there is no statement'that north ely currents are common-at this .part of the coast. It w said that there ire currents near the Kings runningoh the west coast at the northern end. ft is' not said, however, that tho current is normally in hf^-l" 1 dlr ? c l i ?"; J v "° h«ve the cap* fei,f^'1 enco " (^ lch V s not becn contradicted by experts, and which is known to bo tho case by the two assessors) that on many occasions, a southerlv current is met rath in this quarter. He states mat, on the two previous vovaees, he met a southerly set. This being so we do not see how he should be presumed to know that there would be a northerly «ct that would take him some miles out o'f his course In fact, if we were to assume this, then we must assume that he was to believe that the experience which ho had met with on two previous vovaees ' was to be reversed. AVe think'-ithatvot cannot be attributed to him as'negligence thai he did not make that assumption." •' In regard to the charge of not'sounding the Court also held that negligence was not proved.

Nos. 4, 5, and 6, The Boats and Rafts. ■Coming to second class of charges, the Court., stated that there was nothing to support the charges of failing in duty after the wjre'ek. In the opinion of the Court he did everything that a master could havo dono to have compasses and provisions placed in the boats, and ho was not to blame.for Captain Eeid's boat leaving tho wreck without a, full complement of passengers. -, ' ■ conclusion, tho Court remarked:— "As to the third charge of not standing by the rafts, a consideration of the circumstances will show that, so far aa this' chargo is concerned, there is also no proof of any failure of duty on tho part of tho master. He remained on the bridge fill the last. He was washed off the bridge by a sea. He was able, by swimming, to jet on to a portion of'•'the wreck, and ho was rescued by ono of the boats. This boat, unfortunately,-', had been stove in, and was water-logged, and abont to sink. By his exertions in : get-' ting tho nun's shirts to stop up the hole, and using tho heads of cases for bailing, ho was able to stop tho boat from sinking. Ho then went into Ida dinghy to search lor a landing place on tho middle island, and afterwards, found ore. It/is to bo remembered that all this took place in a densf- fog. In order to keep the boats together he used his whistla so that they might know where thov were, hut what very likely happened was that the north-east current—perhaps in a minute or so-carried the raft out of sight Ythcn he got to the boat after being in the.water for nlxmt half an hair there is no evidence that be saw tho raft, and it is not likely that ho could havo eeen tne raft, because it must havo by that time gone a considerable distance to the north-east. To say that, he was negligent in not standing by tho raft is of course absurd, when it is remembered that the raft was drifting in thick fog with the current, and that there is not a tittlo of evidence that the cantain ever saw the raft. We think, therefore, that on this head also thcro is no evidence of the failure- of duty on the part of the master after the wreck.