TAINUI TRAGEDY

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 32, 1 November 1919, Page 8

TAINUI TRAGEDY

NAUTICAL COURT'S JUDGMENT

REGULATIONS NOT COMPLIED WITH

VESSEL NOT SUITED TO CARRY BENZINE

ij 1 >;«rrap!i—Prci>3 Ai«oci»tlo« Christchurch, October 31. The judgment of tho Nautical Court which inquired into the lose) of tho steamer Tainui on September 16, when on tha voyage from Lyttelton to AYangamii with a cargo of benzine, was delivered to-day. The Court found:— (a) That thij Regulations regarding tlio shipment and carriago at sea ol petroleum were not complied witfi. (b) That due care was not exercised in the storage of petroleum on Ihe said ship. (c) That the "said ship was not safe and suitable for the reception and conveyance of petroleum. (d) Tins and cases containing petroleum were leaking to such an extent as to render it tmsafo for the vessel to put to'soa.

'(e) That nil life-saving appliances, with the exception of the iifeltoit, were efficient and available. Tho lifeboat was available, but was too light in construction, and had insufficient floor space. The New Zealand Refrigerating Company, the owners of tho vessel, weije ordered to pay the costs of tho inquiry, amounting to ,£l6l 18s. 7d.

ANNEX TO REPORT, In au annex to ita report the Nautical Court, after referring to tile previous rejection of benzine cargo on September 12, says the Tainui's holds were repaired, but neither was benzine-proof, due lo the fact that the absorbent materials used for frozen meat insulation were unsuitable for benzine. After reference to the highly-dangerous nature of benzine, the Court says: "On September IS there was waiting for shipment at Lyttelton a cargo of benzine and ploughs. The benzine, inclined the rejected cargo discharged from the Tainui three days previously. Mr. Smellie said he was only aware of this on the loth, but a watersider said he heard him say on the 12th that he would arrange for its transfer on the ship's next trip. The watersider's evidence was the more feasible and had been accepted: In the earlier part of the day the captain had given orders to the mate that no leaking cases were to be placed in either hold, particularly the after hold. Thereafter both captain and mat? stood by and saw this order disregarded without making a remonstrance of any kind. Mr. Smellie was on and about the ship at fintervals during the day, and could not fail to see the leaking condition of the cargo, and that leaking cases were being placed in the holds. Later, a further order was given that only badlyleaking cases were to be rejected from the holds rnd placed on the forward deck. The cases were landed on the deck in slings, and leaking eases removed therefrom: This operation wat, found to 1)8 too slow after the first six slings had been disposed of. The remainder were sent direct to the hold. Leakage on tho floor of _tho hold of a not inconsiderable quantity of beiizmo was caused. AVood and sawdust would quicklv absorb benzine. The worst cargo was placed in the forward-hold to prevent as far as possible the benzine fumes getting into the crew's quarters, thus obviating any trouble with the crew at least before sailing. The stowage was negligent on two grounds—none oj the leaking cases should have been allowed in the ship, and ploughs should not have been placed in the same hold with and on top of benzine cargo. It was unreasonable to expect anv officer to so stow his shin of his on?, volition. The only reasonable inference was that the captain and mail were acting under orders, if noli as to the manner of stowage, at least as to th* nscesaity of getting the cargo away. Any other hypothesis would mean that voluntarily each officer set out on this le°t fateful voyage with almost certain death facing the crew and themselves, Regarding the refusal of the crew to fail in March, which led to their dismiss"'. Caplain. .Williamson in Court drew the inference, that he was dismissed because lis supported the crew in their refusal to sail in an unsemvorthy ship With dangerous cargo "

Daylight Sailing Regulations, In the matter of the contravention by three of tho operating company's captains of the daylight sailing regulations, the Court said: "The owners at one time verbally reprimanded one captain for disobedience in noli carrying out tlic-ir instructions. After this leprimand several night journeys wero made across Hi Straits under orders written and verbal from th6''Wellington agents, but liiioii" these journeys wero known to the owners itiv was not suggested that the'offeding manager, agents and captain had been in any way dealt with. It therefore appeared that ihe instruction* to carry out the intention o fthe Admiralty were out intended to he obeyed. , On September 12 the company proposed to sail with au unsafe cargo, and were only prevented by a member of tliq crew, at'the instigation of his comrades, seeking iih" into"vention of tho Marino Department. In ■connection with any strictures the Court had made as to the ship pu I ting by sea with au unsafe cargo, it must not I" overlooked that the owners had no officers _ possessing marine experience. As a result of the stowage e;ich holrf «fler if. '■">! been battened down became a gasometer, from which gases could freely escape (o other parts of the ship, including the stokehold. Leaking cases in each hold would have been sufficient to give this result. Eight hours after the sailing of the ship the fireman on watch would be cleaning out his fires and re-stoking. W. Townsend was the only man on the ship who was singed with fire, and he was the fireman on watch at this time. In (he commission's opinion, when the fireman on watch started io null out his fires the gas fumes in the stokehold ignited and caused an explosion in the forchold. The attempt to launch the lifeboat after the accident was bad practice. It was not suggested that belts and buoy" were ineffective. In the result it transpired I hut it would have bet>n better if none had left the ship. If all had remained aboard they would in all human probability have been saved. The lifelxmt was too lieht in construction and had insufficient floor space. The evidence contradicted the log, which said that lifebor.t drill was regularly held monthly."

Replies to Issues. Answering the issues set for decision, the Court found— (1) That tiio regulations regarding the. shipment and carriage at sea _nf petroleum were not complied with, 'ihe bulkheads of (he ship,, \rhilsi I hey may have been airtight and -watertight for the purposes of carrying frozen nieat on short coastal (rips, were not capable of holding lienzine or benzine fume-;. The 'benzino itself leaked through the floors of the insulations and bulkheads into the bilges, and then (lowed under the boiler. (2) Due caro was not exercised in the stowage of the petroleum in (he ship. As we have already more than hinted, the manner of stowage rendered it almost impossible for the ship to reach its journey's end without, mi explosion. Thn ship was a wooden one, and as constructed it "Was not safe and suitable for tlm reception and conveyance o| petroleum. An iron or steel ship, with bulkheads of iho same meta.U constructed

sc. 'irely riveted to 'lie ouler plating, ia tho best ,mil only method of keening holds air anil watertight for petroleum. (4) The cargo was in such a condition that, its reception on any vessel constituted it a source of danger, and tho order -for its reception was the primary canso of the explosion. Many of the receptacles were freely leaking, and with thft-e on board, n w -. ls u ll( .nfe for the ship to pot to KM. (a) ilie life-s-winir appliances were in good order. We Jin•-(-■ abrade indicated Ihe defect' - the. lifeWf. (After commenting on the roßulp.Vioiis regarding the carrKure of petroleum „ m | ~K , con ( inc Ji c . tions between Kognlatit ms •> and fi the Court, wade surest ions !K lifeboats and lifeboat: drill, and coiiclmM i )V Px . pressing the opinion that |], e ]>. pn.rtment s L\ttelton si_aft underniannfd.) Coroner's Verdict, At the conclusion of the Ur,

M'Carthy, S.M., Coroner at the inquest, returned tho following verdict: "That the deceased Charles Williams, Ephraim Greenwood, AVillium Townsend, Daniel M'Lean, and Alexander Fuller, met then' dentil by drowning on September 10, I'JW. between the hours of '2.30 and (> a.m., through being compelled, on account ol ail explosion of benzine gas, to leave tho Tainui, oil which the.y wero serving, whilst the said ship was at seo, about four miles off the coastline near Gore Bay."