THE MAIL STEAMERS AND PILOTS.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 4836, 21 September 1876, Page 4

THE MAIL STEAMERS AND PILOTS.

The following letter of Captain Ferries, of the R.M.S. Zealandia, has been placed at our disposal : R.M.S.S. Zealandia, At Kandavau, Sept. 1, 1876.

Sir, —I have the honor to call your attention to a question of great importance to the owners and underwriters of the large steamships engaged in the San Francisco mail service, and also to the commanders of these vessels when calling at New Zealand ports. I arrived at Auckland on the 13th ult., and intending to leave at 5 p.m., desired the attendance of the pilot, Mr. Burgess, at that hour. He (the pilot) not being on board and darkness coming on, I hove up my anchor at 5.15 and was proceeding to turn my steamer, which was swung head up harbor, when Mr. Burgess came on board and demanded charge of the ship. This. I declined to give, on the ground that it was expressly contrary to my instructions, and informed him that as soon as I got her turned or straightened up I should ask him to pilot her out of the port. He then said that he would have nothing to do with the ship unless he had full charge. I replied as before " that it was more than I dared do to give up charge of my ship," when he left the bridge. Having turned my steamer, I sent an officer to Mr. Burgess to say that now she was straightened up I would ask him to pilot her out of port. His reply was that he would have nothing to do with her unless he had charge. About ten minutes after, while I was guiding the ship out of harbor myself, the pilot come on the bridge, and asked if I would put the helm as he wished, and also ease or stop her as he wanted. I replied certainly. He thereupon piloted the ship to the usual limits, every instruction given by him with regard to the navigation of the ship being duly attended to.

On my return to Auckland on the 29th ult., I was served with a summons to answer the complaint of the pilot, who charged me with " unlawfully molesting him in the execution of his duty as pilot." My defence was that so far from molesting I was facilitating the ship's departure from port, and only declined to give up full charge of my ship for the reason already stated, and pointed out that however good a pilot Mr. Burgess might be, I considered that I as commander knew better than he possibly could how to manoeuvre or handle my own vessel. I also added that there was nothing in the Harbor Regulations (a copy of which had been previously given me) that authorised a pilot to demand full charge of a ship. To my surprise the case was given against me, and I was fined £5, with costs, a sum that would not admit of an appeal. In conclusion, I may be permitted to say that the peremptory manner of the pilot in demanding charge of my ship led me to the belief that it was done on purpose to raise a vexed question, and occasion annoyance, as no good purpose could be served by such a demand, but on the contrary a serious accident might happen in a harbor of limited dimensions in turning a large vessel of 400 feet, and I submit that no one is so capable of doing it with safety as the commander, who is thoroughly acquainted with the peculiarities of his vessel.

May I therefore ask that you will be good enough to give such instructions as will prevent the recurrence of a similar annoyance either to myself or any other commander of these large steamers at the port of Auckland; for I may add that at no other port in New Zealand or elsewhere in my twenty years' experience at sea (twelve of these in command) has any such question been raised.—l have, &c, J. S. Ferries, Commander R.M.S.S. Zealandia. The Hon. the Postmaster-General.

P.S.—Happening to have a gentleman on board as passenger who was many years barrister in Calcutta, and one of the leading members of the bar there, I asked his opinion on the state of facts sent to you, and I beg to forward a copy of his letter.—J.S.F. R.M.S. Zealandia, At Sea, 31st August, 1876. My Dear Captain Ferries, —Having at your request read the statement you have piepared to send to the Hon. the Chief Commissioner of New Zealand Customs at Wellington, and being asked by you for my opinion on the matter, I most unhesitatingly give it to the effect that there has been a miscarriage of justice, and that you acted strictly in the performance of duty in refusing to give up charge of your ship to any one. The pilot is simply a portion of the crew for the particular portion of the voyage. He is subject to the order of the captain in every thing connected with the ship save and except the way she is to steer. The captain is the judge of what his ship can do, and as to what nS ought to do. For example, in turning the ship had the pilot ordered her to be turned one way the captain knowing all the time that she could not turn that way and not interfered; in case of loss he and his owners would be liable, the captain could not Rhelter himself under the plea of having given over charge to the pilot The decision hi the case of the San Giralomo, decided in the Admiralty Court in England about 40 years ago, is in point. In that case the captain, against his own better better judgment, allowed the pilot to take his ship down the Thames in a fog, when a collision took place. Iu a collision suit the owners could not shelter themselves under the plea of having a licensed pilot on board. The Court held that it was the master's duty te have prevented the pilot getting under weigh. I forget where the case is reported, but the principle has been followed in numerous cases since. Pilots and ship masters are iu the habit of taking a vei-y mistaken notion of their respective duties. This has led to consequences disastrous to owners where loss has occurred thraugh the master abdicating his proper position, and I can conceive no case more likely to lead to disaster than that of a long screw-steamer where the master, who must know how she will turn in the best way, abdicates his duty to a pilot who may or who may not have ever handled a screw-ship of great length. Assuming the facts as correctly stated, the pilot who brought the charge was guilty of a dereliction of duty when he left the bridge for some ten minutes, and seemed to have a returning sense of what his duty was when he came back, and asked you whether you would have the helm put, and the vessel stopped or eased, as he required, which you did up to the time of the pilot leaving the ship. For my part, on the above facts, I cannot see that either you committed any offence or that the magistrate had any jurisdiction. You may make any use of this letter you think fit.—Yours, &c, A. T. T. Peterson. In connection with Captain Ferries' letter, we may mention that at Captain Dow's,

of the City of Sydney's request, local agents, Messrs. Turnbull and Co., applied to the Government for an exemptive certificate for Captain Bendall, the coastal pilot of the mail steamers for New Zealand port 3 for all the company's steamers, so that they might or might not take pilots as they pleased. But the Government could not grant the request,, as the pilots are under the control of the Provincial Governments, except at Dunedin and Auckland, where they are under the Harbor Boards, but they have written to the authorities stating Daptain Dow's wishes, and recommending acquiescence.