PROGRESS INQUIRY

Hokitika Guardian, 26 May 1931, Page 3

PROGRESS INQUIRY

CAPTAIN COPLAND’S PART

(By Telegraph- —Per Press Associationj WELLINGTON,'. Aliy 25. At the Progres enquiry, Mr Kirkcaidie said that there had bleu a deplorable tragedy, but had it not been for the manlier in which Captain. Copland handled the vessel, th«; Toss would have been far 'greater. The lives that were saved were saved by Captain Copland’s brilliant seamanship. AA'lietlier lie should luive accepted tow or not was a question of direction, and, as there was on apprehension ot danger, the Masters ot the Merchant Service Guild would view it with horror it the Court laid down tlie principle that, in the circumstances, this sort of master should have accepted a tow. Continuing, Mr Kirkcaldie, for Captain Copland, said that but or his magnificent seamanship, there would have been a greater tragedy. If Captain Copland had submitted to being salvaged, he would have been disgraced in the eyes of his own fraternity, by surrendering to panic. Captain Copland had been entitled to act on the assumption that there was no danger to life. Captain Copland’s difficulties wore due to the iudec.sion ot the .-incapacity in other directions in getting assistance out to him.

THE OWNERS’ CASE

WELLINGTON, Alay 25

At the Progress inquiry, Mr Watson, tor the owner soT. the. Pi ogress said that he would restrict himself entirely to matters which concerned the oWncrs of the. ship. He invited the Court to remember that the attacks made on Captain Copland were made not to assist the inquiry, but with a view to subsequent litigation. Mr Watson adopted entirely the submissions that Air Kirkealuie had put to the 'Court on behalf of Captain Copland. Tlie Holm Co. considered Captain Copland was a brave, capable and resourceful skipper, and that bis action were the proper ones for him to have taken., "With regard 1 , to the first question that had been, put to; the Court, lie considered that tlie casualty ! was due to the breakdown in the means of propulsion, with nothing to show tlie origin or cause ot that breakdown There was no evidence whatever that either, tin* propellor or the tail.sliafl actually came into contact with the wire hawser at Wanganui, On tin* eoh'trarv ,tlie* evidence was uncontradicted' that tlie bilge keels were by far tlie lowest portion of tin* hull, and that evidence pointed to the fact that it was the bilge keel that came into contact with the. wfferope, while there was no' evi drt it- e ‘ Tl l at ‘"thfe” prßsfcllor or luilsliaft touched the wire. Even if they bad, the probabilities were against there, being any resultant damage to either the propellor or the sliatt. They had definite evidence that there was no damage to either the shaft or the propellor. “The Wanganui incident brought into the proceedings to the possible detriment and injury of my client,” he said, “is a mere idle rumour.” With' regard to the sixth question, Mr Watson said that there was no evidence whatever of any undue delay by the officers of the Holm Shipping Co. in having a tug sent out. Captain Ness ordered steam to be raised on the trig within a few minutes of hearing of the vessel’s disablement, and at 9;40 p.m. he gave a definite order for the tug to proceed to sea. Captain Holm hud not heard of the casualty until after the tug had been dispatched, and could, not therefore, be open to aiiy charge of delay. Next morning, however, when he heard of the Toia’s non-success, he gave orders for tlie tug “Terawhiti” to proceed to the aid of the Progress. As- far as the last question was concerned, Air Watson continued, he did not for the purpose of inquiry, propose to analyse the actions of Captain Campbell. He submitted, however, that there were three main proposition which had to be determined: (1) Was the master of the tug justified or not, in not going to leeward when lie first arrived at The Progress? (2) Did lie, or did he riot, take all reasonable steps to establish effecthe communication between his boat and the Progress? (3) Was he justified in abandoning operations at the time and undthe circumstances in which lie did abandon them?

THE TOIA’S CASE. For the master of the tug “Toia,” Air Treadwell thought it proper to point out to the Court that there was a considerable difference between the New Zealand Act and the Imperial Maritime Act, with respect to the course to be pursued by the master of a ship in attempting to aid another vessel in distress. “I take it that the object of our Act,” said Air Treadwell, “is to prevent that very class ot action which might lie called heroic, but to which the words ‘hazardous, and ‘dangerous’ more properly apply.” It was for the master of a ship to say what could be done Air Treadwell continued, and lie was satisfied the Court would be loath to say tlutt the discretion which his client had been called' upon from time to time to exercise, had been improperly exercised. The Court had seen during life*week that other master mariners were disinclined to express an opinion about the action of a fellow master mariner. Air Walsh had charged Air Treadwell’s client with mishandling his ship, and with not showing what he had been pleased to call sufficient courage. Bearing ift v

mind tlie conditions under which Captain Campbell had reached the ship, All- Treadwell was inclined to use language which lie was sure tlie t ou< t would not tolerate in replying Mi Walsh’s charge. When Captain Camphell arrived at the Progress the night was 'dark, with fleeting clouds. i no weather and sea. Were tempestuous, and the weight of evidence had bten that tno weather grew worse throughout the night. Had Captain Campfeel. ;s vessel struck tlie rocks and his crew perished.. Mr Treadwell appreliendeu that lie would have had a lar more difficult task than lie had in the present inquiry, lor the captain would have been charged with putting Ins vessel oil the rocks through acting hazardously, negligently and dangerously. He had exercised high discretion in refraining from purling Ins Ship to a test which he did not behove his ship was capable of perform-

ingAir Treadwell submitted finally that tlie following facts had been established -(1) That the weather increased all tlie time from tile tug’s hn-ival. (2) That the water was breaking over tlie whole time. (3) That .the Jurats were in the red sector. (4) That the rocks could he seen by night, (a) That it was impossible to judge distances hv night. (6) That the Toia had certain physical disabilities which made her an unsuitable boat for this particular kind of operation. (7) That this difficulty was enhanced by the fact that she would have had to take such a large sweep to go round to leeward and dodge the anchors. “Captain Campbell showed tlie class o. man lie is in the box,” said Air Treadwell. “He fenced at nothing, and showed that, whether it was in his layout- or against him, he was disposed to answer clearly and concisely. 1 submit that the Court would be loath to censure the actions of a master mariner of gocxl repute under circumstances of the greatest danger and difficulty.” Air Castle, lor tlie Harbour Board, mentioned tlie fact that the Court had given its opinion during tlie proceedings last week that there had been no undue delay in the dispatch of the tug. It was accordingly not necessary for him to justify the action o, the Harbour Board, or its employees. He sketched tlu* part that had been played bv the Harbour Board in the events leading up to the loss ot the Progress, and concluded by submitting that all that could have been done by the officers of the Board had been done.

Mr Prendeville, for the .Marine Department did not consider it necessary to make a closing address. He reminded the Court that, if it desired to make any comment regarding q.netton number seven, relating to Captain Campbell, it was quite at liberty to do so without affecting the master’s certificate. That could be done after, if necessary under another regulatum at an inquiry ordered by the Minister. Before the adjournment, Mr Page said that the Court would take time to consider the whole matter. TheJ hoped to get their report out quite shortly. The Court will make an inspection of the coastline to-morrow, and will hear the statements of certain eyewitnesses as to the position the Progress occupied prior to going ashore.