THE TAINUI EXPLOSION.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLI, Issue 2050, 4 November 1919, Page 2

THE TAINUI EXPLOSION.

VERDICT OF THE COURT. SHIP NOT SUITABLE FOR BENZINE CARRYING. /V Christchurch, Gel. 31. The judgment of the Nautical Court which enquired into the‘loss of the sleamer Tainui on Sept ember JOlb, when on a voyage from Lyttellon to Wanganui with a cargo of benzine, was delivered to-day. The Court found: — (a) That the regulations regard- • ing the shipment and carriage at sea of petroleum were not complied with. , (b) That due care was not exercised in the storage of petroleum on the said ship. (c) That; the said ship was not safe and suitable for the reception" and conveyance of petroleum. (d) The tins and cases containing petroleum were leaking to such an extent as to render it unsafe for (lie vessel to put to sea. (e) That nil life-saving appliances, with the exception of the lifeboat, were efficient and The'lifeboat was available, but was v too light in construction, and bad insufficient floor space.

The New Zealand Refrigerating Company, the owners of the vessel, were ordered to pay the costs of the enquiry, amounting to £4Ol 18s 7d. STORAGE OF CARGO NEGLIGENT. In the annex to its finding, the Nautical Court reviews tire evidence relating to the nature and storage of (he cargo, and says that the stowage was negligent; on two grounds. None of the leaking tins should have been allowed in the ship, and the ploughs should not have been placed in the same hold with and on lop of a benzine cargo. It was unreasonable to expect any officer.', to so stow his ship of his own volition. The Company’s shipping officials knew of the leaking slate of the cargi), and the only interference was that of the captain and male, who were acting under.orders, if not as to the manner of the storage, at least as to the necessity of getting (he cargo away. Any other hypothesis, the linding adds, would mean Dial voluntarily each officer had scl out on this fateful voyage with'almost certain death facing the crew and themselves.

Deferring to the I rouble with the crew in March last, which resulted in (heir dismissal and the subsequent dismissal of Captain Williamson, and the fact that counsel for the Refrigerating Company, in cross-ex-amination, had asked no- questions as to his dismissal, the court drew the inference that he was dismissed because he had supported the hrew in their refusal to go to sea. in an unseaworthy ship, with a dangerous cargo. ORIGIN OEEXPLOSION. In connection with breaches by three of its captains, of the Daylight Hailing Regulations, the Court says that the owners_at one time verbally reprimanded one captain for disobedience in not carrying out. their instructions. After this reprimand, several night journeys wore made across the Strait under orders written and verbal from the Wellington agents, but though these journeys were known to the owners, it was iit'd: suggested that the oilending manager, agents and captain had been in any way dealt with. It therefore appeared that instructions to carry out the intention of the Admiralty were not intended to be obeyed.

In regard to the explosion, the Court was of opinion that when the fireman on watch started to pull out his tires,'!he gas fumes in the stokehold ignited and caused an explosion in the forehold. The attempt to launch the lifeboat after the accident was had in practice. It was not suggested that the belts and buoys were ineffective in result. It transpired that it would have been better if nonejiad left the ship. If. all had remained aboard, they would in all human probability have been saved. The lifeboat was too light in construction, and had iusullicieiit iloor space. The - evidence contradicted the log, which said that lifeboat drill was regularly, held monthly. THE VERDICT. After answering the issues, the. Court/remarked on the contradiction between regulations 2 and G of the Petroleum Regulations, and suggest that petroleum should be carried at sea only in vessels containing iron or steel bulkheads. Suggestions were also made as to lifeboats, and lifeboat drill, and the frc/pient inspection of life-saving apparatus was recommended. The Court also expressed the opinion that the Lyttelton staff of the Marine Department was insufficient to cope with its work.

After judgment bad been delivered, the Coroner, Mr S. E. McCarthy, returned the following verdict in reference to the bodies found: ‘‘That Charles, Williams, Ephraim Greenwood, William Townsend, Daniel McLean and Alexander Pullen met their death by drowning on September. 16th, 1910, between the hours of 2.30 and 0 aim., through being compelled, on account of an explosion of benzine gas, to leave the Tainui, on which they were, serving, whilst the said ship was at sea, about four miles off the coastline near Gore Bay.-