The Globe. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1878.

Globe, Volume XX, Issue 1494, 29 November 1878, Page 2

The Globe. FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 1878.

Several investigations have taken place during the last few months in various parts of the colony, under the provisions of the Inquiries into Wrecks Act, the results of which have given rise to much unfavorable comment. These Courts, it must be said, are peculiarly constituted. Preliminary inquiries are first made by the Customs into the details of any casualty by which injury to life or property has been, or might have been occasioned. If the Customs authorities deem it fit, they then “ send up the case for trial” to the nearest Resident Magistrate who, with a Customs officer acting much as a kind of prosecutor, enquires into the facts with the assistance of one or more nautical assessors. Should there be any conflict of opinion as to the nature of the verdict which the Court should return, the Magistrate’s fiat still goes forth as a recommendation to the Government, although the assessor is at liberty to place in writing his reasons for disagreeing with the ruling of his co-judge. When trying technical issues, it is natural to think that technically educated men would be selected as best able to arrive at correct conclusions. Yet, in these Courts held under the Inquiries into Wrecks Act, the vetoing power is practically placed in the hands of one quite a layman in the nautical art, a Resident Magistrate. This can scarcely bo said to be as it should be, and no wonder that its irrationality has frequently been made patent. In the investigation of the causes which led to the wreck of the ship City of Auckland, hold in Wellington lately, the Court was composed of the local Resident Magistrate—who knows as much about nautical affairs as does a horse-marine —and of two assessors. The verdict of the Court was not unanimous, the Magistrate and one of the assessors acquitting the master of the ship from all blame, although the latter had admitted that he had made an error of some fourteen nautical miles in his reckoning, <l when making the land at “ night in the narrows of Cook’s straits.” No wonder that the second assessor —a commander in the Royal Navy, by-tho-by, should take a less lenient view of the case, and refuse to endorse a judgment so repugnant to all sea traditions. A fine ship and a valuable cargo wore destroyed, and over a hundred lives placed on the brink of eternity through a glaring blunder of the captain, and yet ho was not even reprimanded. Not a cast of the lead, it was proved, had been tried, although the great regularity of Cooks’ Straits soundings is notorious; a ship’s position entering it from the westward can always bo determined by the lead. But with this more than human treatment of the captain of the City of Auckland, wo may now contrast what happened to the unfortunate master of the s.s. Taupe, whose certificate was suspended for six mouths not many days ago. From the facts adduced at the it seems that the course given by Captain Andrews to the officer who took charge of the watch when he retired, was, by some means not very clearly explained, altered a quarter of a point inshore. The steamer had thou rounded the most eastern point on the coast, and was supposed to bo heading fair along the land. She however gradually drew in too near to the laud, and ultimately grazed a well known reef of rocks marked upon every chart, audwitli the existence of which cvmy

coastal seaman is acquainted. Without doubt the vessel had a very narrow escape; it was indeed a case of “ touch and go.” Upon arrival at Dunedin, where the headquarters of the owners of the Union Company are established, the usual enquiry under the Act to which we have referred, was held. A mass of evidence of a more or less satisfactory character was taken, when the Resident Magistrate stated that the decision of the Court would bo that Captain Andrews had evidently made a miscalculation of his distance from his last sighting the East Cape. His certificate was taken from him, and ordered to be cancelled for a period of six months.

The first mate —who, it seems to ns, had no more to do with the mishap than the man in the moon, being off duty at the time, had also his certificate suspended for a similar term, while the second mate, the officer actually in charge of the ship when she struck, was only reprimanded “ for not having called the captain when ho—the second mate —considered it necessary to alter the course.” People not versed in nautical matters would naturally jump at the conclusion that the officer in immediate command of a ship, when being made aware that something was wrong in the course she was steering, would at once draw the attention of the master to the fact, if he himself had not the power to alter the course without his sanction. The Dunedin Bench apparently thought otherwise. The captain and the first mate, both off duty at the time of the accident, have been punished in a way such as means to them, destitution almost, but the second mate has escaped all but a “ wigging,” while the owners of the Taupo are furthermore saddled with the whole cost of the enquiry. Granted that Captain Andrews had originally erred slightly, when calculating his departure from the East Cape, the mistake was but an infinitesimal one when compared to that which sent the City of Auckland to pieces at Otaki. That vessel besides, had clear water before her, and a fair wind after her. There are many serious interests involved in the way in which legislation affecting ships and seamen should be carried out. Commercially speaking the community at large has a full right to expect that those who through neglect or incompetency imperil valuable property placed in their keeping, should be severely punished. But on the other hand it is quite unfair to the seafaring class to allow cases offering features of a similar character to be treated in a totally different way. It is making fish of some and flesh of others, and disgust if not demoralisation must follow, Taking these two verdicts of the Taupo and the City of Auckland, as instances in point showing how legislation of so great importance as that bearing upon shipping and the safe management of vessels, can be stretched into absurd lengths, we feel strongly that it would be well if the Legislature was moved to interfere, so as to place upon a more satisfactory footing the powers and jurisdiction of these grotesquely constituted Courts.

A telegram from our special correspondent, that appears in another column, informs us that Kaufman demands, on the part of Russia, that we, that is the Indian army, shall not occupy the Khyber Pass permanently Kaufmann is the Russian General and Statesman—to whom is entrusted the charge of Russian affairs and the conservation of her interests; such as may appear to him and his Government necessary upon any contingency that may arise consequent upon the Afghanistan war. The telegrams we receive from home or far distant countries are not always to be taken at the letters of their words; economy and other reasons with which we need not trouble our readers, make it difficult sometimes to interpret the scrawls we receive from the telegraph office ; and, on this occasion, it is with considerable doubt that we proceed to remark upon the matter we have now in hand. However, if we are rightly informed, General Kaufmann has actually had the impudence to “demand ” the relinquishment of the Khyber Pass after that position has been won by our Indian army. Where this demand has been lodged we are not informed, but no matter where it is received, we have no doubt it will be carefully attended to. The perquisition may be intended as retaliation in some sort, of our interference with the Russian invasion of Turkey. If it is, all that is to be said is, the circumstances are very different, and so will be the result. A “demand” made without sufficient force in the rear to compel proper attention is simply ridiculous, and as such, no doubt this latest impertinent interference will be dealt with.