THE BOOJUM AND SIR DONALD COLLISION ENQUIRY.

Daily Telegraph (Napier), Issue 3083, 14 May 1881, Page 3

THE BOOJUM AND SIR DONALD COLLISION ENQUIRY.

After we went to press yesterday several comparatively unimportant witnesses were examined, and several of the old witnesses were recalled and examined on particular

points. His Worship then said that before counsel addressed the Court he would again remind them that ib was not the object of the present enquiry to go into matters of litigation ; but its sole duty was to discover and report the cause of the accident. Mr Carlile addressed the Court. He said that from tlie evidence it was clear that no blame attached to Captain Quinlan of the Sir Donald. All the -witnesses agreed that he was coming up the mid-channel with a seven-knot tide—whether a little to the westward or eastward was not important; that he did not starboard the helm, but kept it steadied to port, thereby obeying the rules. Had he taken the opposite course he. would not only have broken the rules, but would have either run into the Boojum or knocked the bottom out of his boat on the eastern shingle bank. Even those who said he ought to have put his helm to starboard were not positive that he could have thereby cleared the Boojum, and had ho failed to do so the consequences would have been serious indeed. Captain Quinlan saw the full danger and chose to be run down himself rather than risk running into a boat crowded with passengers, and endangering many human lives. No neglect could be asserted on his part; he had done all it was possible to do. After the captain of the Boojum was in mid-stream it could not be urged that he had done anything wrong —that was not the point on which it was sought to fix the charge of negligence against the company. The whole root of the matter was that no steamer had a right to attempt to pass another in the entrance in the face of a strong tide. It was gross negligence on the part of the company not to have a man for the express purpose of looking out. The precaution was so simple and obvious that no company not utterly reckless of life and property would fail to adopt it. It did not appear that the captain of the Boojum had been informed of the danger j but Charles Miller, one of his hands, had. There was plenty of evidence to that effect, and the only man who disputed it was Charles Miller himself. It was the duty of a vessel going out to keep the starboard side, and the Boojum could have done so with the assistance of a spring as large vessels did, and sho could have been assisted in so doing by putting up her staysail. The real cause of the accident was the Boojum starting without seeing the channel was clear. Rule 99 of the harbor regulations, which provided that there should be a responsible person on the bridge beside one in charge of the engines, had been infringed in this case ; for it could not he said that a man who could only turn steam on and off had control of the engine. It was clear that the person in charge on deck had the double duty ; and when Mr M'Cormick, the mercantile agent of the company, was not acting as a kind of supernumerary engineer, the captain had to let go the wheel to attend to tho engine. The harbor regulations for the prevention of accident were simple and reasonable, and it was great neglect not to attend strictly to them. The point he principally contended for was I the entire blamelessness of Captain Quinlan. It was quite possible that other vessels had successfully run the risk of passing each other in a manner contrary to the regulations ; but in doing what he did, the master of the Sir Donald, while avoiding the risk of running down the Boojum, had adhered strictly to the harbor regulations. The blame, if any, rested with the captain or owners of the Boojum.

Mr Lee said he need add very little to the considerations just advanced. As a matter of fpet it was clear that the captain of the Boojum must have been in error in saying that the Sir Donald was on tho eastern side of the channel. The whole tiling occupied so short a time that he was scarcely in a position to notice which side she was before the collision occurred. The two witnessess who supported Captain Dowel's statement belonged to the crew of a rival boat to the Sir Donald, and a line drawn from their point of sight to the western pier would show that had the !Sir Donald been at all to tho eastward when half-way up the channel they could not have seen her at all. The plans put in showing the position of tho Boojum whon she first saw the Sir Donald and when she struck showed how little room there was for manipulation. The fault was in leaving at all when another boat was coming up the channel. The captain of the Boojum, with so many lives in his charge, knew his responsibility, and should have looked out before he left, or have called out to someone to know if his course was clear. When he first say the Sir Donald, had he run up

towards the bridge, ho would just have done what he had to do after the collison. The distance, in a straight lino from the wharf to the point of tho collision, was only 300 feet ; the Sir Donald, coming in at the rate of about ten knots, or 1040 feet in a minute, would cover the whole distance run in about one-third of a minute, which must have been the whole time occupied from the time the Boojum left the wharf till the accident occurred. The sole question was, who was to blame ? Ho contended that the company were on three grounds. First, for starting without a proper look-out; second, for not keeping to the eastern side of the channel by using a spring ; and third, for not reversing the engine and running up stream when the danger was first seen. Mr Lascelles said that many of the questions asked, and much of tho evidence taken, might be described as "much ado about nothing." The point before the Court was simply to decide whether blame attached to anybody, and if so, to whom ? The great body of the respectable evidence adduced went to show that when once out in the stream, the captain of the Boojum did all it was possible to do ; and further, that on leaving the wharf he did all that was considered necessary by ordinary usage, and used all proper pi'ecautions. The great allegation against him was that he left without ascertaining that the channel was clear. They might at once dismiss all the evidence as to warning having been given, for it was not asserted that any warning reached the captain ; and unless the knowledge were fixed upon him that a vessel was coming up, no blame could attach to him. He would ask, was it customary, or had it ever been considered necessary, to keep such a look-out ? We should probably be very wise after the event, and might have some very strict rules after this to prevent the recurrence of anything of the kind, but hundreds of vessels had come and gone without such a precaution being considei'ed necessary, and, but for the accident of Saturday, things would probably have gone on the same for a quarter of a century more. He attaohed no importance to discrepancies in the estimate of time, even extending from one minuto to ten, so much depended on the state of mind of the observer. It was evident enough that the Sir Donald was coming up at a great pace, and that when the Boojum had once left the wharf no other course was open to her but to go on. She had sounded her whistle, and, as she had been advertised to leave at 11 and did not get away until a quarter past, the Sir Donald should have been on the lookout for her. As for the suggestion that the Boojum should have been warped out, it was quite unnecessary in the case of so small a vessel; it was not done in the case of large steamers. The pilot himself had said so, and that it was the usual custom for small steamers, with a flood tide, to shoot across. (His Worship said Mr Lascelles' argument amounted only to this—that the harbormaster was in the habit of winking at the neglect of one of the regulations.) The Boojum had acted according to general usage, and this usage was justified by the hundreds of vessels which had gone in and out without any such accident as the present one ever having occurred previously. If the witnesses relied on by the other side were right, the harbor-master must be wrong. It was alleged that the boat was not sufficiently manned. For there to be any force in the argument it should have been shown that this defect, if it existed,' had some connection with the accident. This could not be alleged, nor was it shown that any accident or inconvenience had arisen through the man at the wheel temporily letting go to attend to the lever. As for keeping a man on the look-out for vessels in the entrance, that was no duty of the company. If such a thing were done it should be done by the harbor authorities. It was clear that such a precaution was not supposed to be of much importance when no provision was made for it in the rules. To prove culpable neglect, it should be established that there had been a breach either of some specific regulation or usage of tho port. Nothing of the kind had been shown. All proper precautions had been observed and care taken. The Boojum left the wharf in the manner customary and approved by the harbor-master, and no blame could attach to the master for failing to take precautions never before considered necessary, and which had yet to be shown to be of advantage.

Mr Carlile said that with reference to the remark about the harbor authorities, he would explain that the larger steamers paid harbor dues, and the local authorities took the responsibility of all necessary precautions. The master of the lighters did not pay these dues, and were their own pilots.

Mr Lee put in for the consideration of the Court the case of the Concordia, with reference to the interpretation of certain regulations in navigation, as bearing upon the present case.

Mr Ellis addressed the Court. He said the accident was not the result of a visitaof God nor action of the Queen's enemies.

His Worship said this inquiry had no reference to actions for insurance or any other kind of litigation. Mr Ellis said the accident occurred at midday ; there was no fog or darkness ; and those who had lost goods wished to recover their value. He contended that the accident could not have occurred had proper precautions been taken. It was the duty of the mate of a steamer to see that everything was clear before her engines were set going. In this case the man was actually warned, but took no heed. Were the uninsured to suffer ? His Worship said this was not a matter for the present Court to decide. Mr Ellis's plan would be to obtain sound legal advice as to whether he had a ground for action against the company. The Court then adjourned.