THE ELINGAMITE INQUIRY. A Rather Lame Conclusion.
FOR some weeks past, a Court of Inquiry has been sitting in Auckland, diving very deep into the causes which sent the Elingamite to the bottom of the sea, and they have practically found, at great cost to the countiy, that the orily person responsible for the system which permits a boat to go to sea in an unseaw orthy condition is the captain. The people of Ne^ Zealand, having paid for this exhaustive inquiry, would probably have liked to see something for their money. The Court did not censure the owners, who may continue to taike as many passengeis as they like without providing bettei means of preventing disaster. The captain of a ship, responsible as he is for his charge wh-'e aboard her, is not in, a position to insist that his company shall provide his ship with engines that are to be relied on, and lifesaving apparatus sufficient for all needs. The captain is not lesponsible for the system under which his ship is worked. He is on board to obey orders, and to make the best of the means to hand in an emergency While it is obvious that the captain of the Elingamite w as gui' ty of neglect at sea, it is ict by any means obvious thai the mea.ns at his disposal for meeting a grave emergency w-ere adequate for the purpcoe, and they were certainly not in a«=tate cf preparedness. He must accept, his full share of the biaime for this, but most people will think his employers ore madnly lesponsible. * * * It is incumbent on shipping companies that have an immense number of lives continually in the-r keeping to take every reasonable precaution to safeguard those lives at Em. While distributing blame, the Couit might have insisted that shipowners were primarily responsible for tho- safety ot passengers, and marked its sense of the neglect shown in the case under review by severe censure. It is evident, from the finding of the Court., that it believed the captain might have saved the Elingamite if he had been less reckless, but it is also clear that the disaster, partly attributed
to tins cause, might, have been averted. even though he was reckless had theengines been capable of perfect control. -T * *■ The Court sadd nothing about the negligence of shipping companies in failing to properly provision life-saving craft, but it found that the officers wereresponsible for the disorder of thetackle and the poorness of the equipment. Perhaps, the "equipment" included food and water, and surely even this should be regulated by the owners. The outcome of this long-drawn-out and costly inquiry is that a single officer is. suspended for one year, and lined £50. Oh, most lame and impotent conolusaon ! It does not recommend that the provision for the safety of passengers must be the paramount consideration., and it does not suggest that companies insist that their calptains 1 should furnish a statement, duly attested, at the end of each voyage, setting forth the number of boat drills given, and the efficiency of tlhe crew. These drills are a more or less periodical feature of life at sea, but their frequency seems to entirely depend on the inclination of the captain. More than that, there ought to be regular official inspection at the terminal ports, to make sure that the life-saving provision to cope with sudden disaster at sea is quite ample, thoroughly seirviceable, and right up to date. Above all, there is necessity for more stringent provisions in our stopping laws to emphasise' the sucredness of hunuaai life, and to oompet every care being taken to protect it from tine penlsi of the deep. Reform cannot be effected meireiy I>y suspending and fining a captain. The knowledge that a captain may lose his certificate if found' on a boat unseaworthy, badly equipped!, oi inadequately provisioned, will be salutary so far as he is concerned. But, v. c want also to rouse sih p-ownersi to a full sense of the responsibility they should certainly share w^th their employees. And, means must be found to attain that object.
Permanent link to this item
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZFL19030124.2.12
Bibliographic details
Free Lance, Volume III, Issue 134, 24 January 1903, Page 8
Word Count
689THE ELINGAMITE INQUIRY. A Rather Lame Conclusion. Free Lance, Volume III, Issue 134, 24 January 1903, Page 8
Using This Item
No known copyright (New Zealand)
To the best of the National Library of New Zealand’s knowledge, under New Zealand law, there is no copyright in this item in New Zealand.
You can copy this item, share it, and post it on a blog or website. It can be modified, remixed and built upon. It can be used commercially. If reproducing this item, it is helpful to include the source.
For further information please refer to the Copyright guide.