THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1880. OVER LEGISLATION.

Globe, Volume XXII, Issue 2050, 18 September 1880, Page 2

THE GLOBE. SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 18, 1880. OVER LEGISLATION.

The Harbor Board was employed for a length of time on Thursday seriously discussing a question, the carrying out of which their common sense might surely have shown them was impracticable. At a late inquest on the body of a seaman of the Loch Awe, who was found drowned in the harbor on the 3rd instant, the jury recommended that a netting should be placed under the gangway of every vessel in port, and this recommendation was forwarded by the Coroner to the Harbor Board. The Harbor Master, with the special knowledge he of course possesses, naturally had furnished a memo, that the idea was not one that could commend itself to anybody who knew anything about the subject, but certain members of the Board, the milk of whose human kindness was undiluted by any insight into the true nature of the proposition, strongly stood up for the nets. These nets, bo it remembered, were to bo placed under the gangways to catch drunken men in their crossing from the wharf to the vessels. It is already laid down by law that the gangways must have a rail on each side, and be properly lighted, but naturally the inebriate laughs to scorn such paltry precautions, and a net is to be placed to catch him before he reaches the water. Now the regulations in force in harbor are stringent enough in all conscience, if properly carried out. Ship masters, as it is, complain that in Lyttelton they are more strictly bound down than they are in other ports. Wo do not complain of this, for in all probability the precautions demanded are salutary enough. But if special rules and regulations are to be made to guard against those who may choose to “ take a drop too much,” where, it may be asked, is the affair to end. Are the wharfs te bo netted all round, for nothing is easier than for a man who is not over steady on his legs, to fall over the side. It is impossible to guard a man against the risks brought on by his own folly. The public are not kept off the platforms of our railway carriages because their open condition is unsafe for light-headed gentlemen. The restraint on the public would be too heavy and it is not the special mission of the railway authorities to look after inebriates. In the same way it is not the special mission of ship masters to protect drunken men from falling off gangways. They are supposed to use all reasonable precautions, but why should they be held responsible for the actions of men who are not responsible for their own actions. Any ordinary man, with a gangway properly lighted and .protected on each side by a rail, is in no possible danger when crossing into a vessel. If ship masters are to take precautions against accidents happening to drunken men, why not to those that might befal lunatics ? An active lunatic might chose to board a vessel in a number of ways more peculiar than graceful. Why not guard against such an event ? We do not wish to make light of the life of any man because he happens to be inebriated, but common sense must teach us that to put a burdensome restriction on ship masters for the special behoof of the unsober, "is totally unfair to the former. Drunken men are allowed on shore to do a number of things by which their lives are jeopardised. Then why single out shipmasters to specially provide for their safety. The members of the Harbor Board who took up the question on Thursday were, no doubt, animated by a kindly spirit, but there is such a thing as over legislation. The lives of sober men are open to enough risks and to spare. Why not force them to guard against such possibilities F Eor instance, lightning may during a storm strike any man instantly dead. Suppose every man during a storm was forced to carry a lightning conductor! And why not, further, put a lightning conductor on the family cow and pig on the same occasions ? It might be a somewhat burdensome restriction, but the cow and the pig would be all the safer.