New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1877.

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXII, Issue 5130, 1 September 1877, Page 2

New Zealand Times (PUBLISHED DAILY.) SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 1, 1877.

THE facts adduced in evidence before the Court of Inquiry into the circumstances connected with the wreck of the barque Robina Dunlop have already been published in our columns, and our readers are no doubt familiar with-the main features of the case. On Wednesday the Court pronounced judgment to; the effect that, in_their opinion, the vessel was lost. through the culpable Negligence ' of the master, whose certificate they suspended, for two years, and severely censured the mate; In the justness of this decision we think everyone who has read the evidence will agree. But had tho. Government notlbeen active in prosecuting the investigation, there would have been something very like a miscarriage of justice. Before the case was heard in Wellington, a preliminary investigation took place before the •Collector of Customs at Wanganui, and that officer, inhisreport to the authorities here, exonerated the master, officers, and crew, from blame. The counsel for; the captain at the recent investigation (Mr. Quiok) made a poinc of this, and argued that the Crown was unduly pressing for a conviction. To this, counsel on the opposite side (and we certainly think Mr. Stafford had the best of the argument), : replied that on preliminary inquiries, such as that made by the Collector, at Wanganui, the duty of that officer consisted in his reporting the, facts of the case,as elicited by the evidence, and in saying whether or not he considered a formal investigation necessary, and it was further argued that in taking upon himself to exonerate the master, officers, and crew, he had greatly exceeded his duty. The Government, upon a careful scrutiny of the] evidence, considered that a formal inquiry was necessary. They had before them the unfortunate, mishap which occurred in an investigation held by a collector at the Chatham Islands, where, in :■ consequence of a mistaken notion on the part of that gentleman, the master of the Ocean Mail had practically escaped from the sentence of the Court. The Inquiry into'Wrecks "Act is a very; important'pro-: vision. In order to give it .effect,' and thereby to. protect life and property;'it is necessary that the authorities should cause a most careful investigation to be made into the circumstances surrounding every wreck, where there is any doubt at all as to its causos, and it is to be desired that no technical difficulties should prevent such an inquiry being carried out. It is to be borne in mind also :that the Wanganui collector, as was pointed out by the counsel for the Crown, was unassisted by a nautical assessor, and as the investigation was mainly upon nautical points, the collector's opinion mast be taken as of very little value. The notion that the Government desired to secure a conviction at all hazards, as was hinted by the couusel for the defence, was combatted by Mp. Stafford, who urged that the public could only bo protected by the Government taking action under the Act as they had done. Among themanystrongpointsestablished against the master of the vessel was his not having paid greater attention

to the navigation of his vessel. It was proved that while he considered the vessel had run only 50 miles, she had in fact run 05 or 67, and it was from this mistake that the wreck occurred? The 'question was, how had this.mistake arisen 1 Froni the' captain's own'evidence it appeared that the ship was well ballasted, that she was a smart vessel, that the patent log was in.good..working order, and from a long experience of it, .was to be depended upon, and that he (the captain) had allowed for lee-way and currents. How, then, had the mistake arisen ? The captain said he had on several occasions at intervals drawn in the patent log and noted the distance run. Now, was this correct ? The evidence of the men at the wheel from 12 o'clock noon until 8 p.m. on the 13th, the day of the wreck, had been taken, and none of these said that they saw the captain look at the patent log : that if he had done so, they must have seen it. And from the position in which the log-line was fastened, it was only reasonable to believe their statements. ' Then, even assuming that, the captain did look at the log, still, was he justified, being in the locality in which he was, dangerous as he knew it to be, on a dark and dirty night, standing so long on one course 1 or rather, was it not his dnty to have gone aboufcand furtherouttoseauntil daylight 1 With regard to the mate's testimony, that officer said that soundings had been taken all day and night since leaving Wellington; but the question was had soundings been taken between 6 and 8 o'clock on the evening of the 13th 1 What was the evidence on this point 1 Merely the mate's own. And what was the evidence against that 1 First, that of. the man at the wheel from 6 till 8, who did not see him take soundings ; next, that of .the carpenter, an independent and uninterested witness, who was on the deck during those hours, and who stated that he did not see the mate take soundings. This witness said moreover that he must have seen him had he done so. Then, had the mate reported to the captain the fact of his taking soundings ? It certainly appeared that he had not. If he had cast the lead he would have got soundings, and assuming the chart to be correct (and Captain Williams' evidence was to that effect) the disaster would have been prevented. Moreover, was it not his duty as officer of the watch to have kept a - careful look-out ? Had he done so ? _ The evidence proved that he did not see; the breakers until some time after the carpenter had seen them. The points were very conclusively put by Mr. Stafford during his argument, and after an exhaustive enquiry had taken place, during which the material facts were elicited mainly throxigh the assistance of ;the nautical assessor,- the conclusion (and so the Court has considered) was almost irresistible that the master and mate had been guilty of culpable negligence. The result of this enquiry is calculated to act as a warning to careless navigators in these waters, and to inspire confidence in the minds .of sea-going passengers on our coasts that the Government is not altogether unmindful of their safety and interests. If casualties cannot be prevented, at all -events the number of preventive accidents may be lessened by due precautions being taken, and by a full and careful enquiry, being instituted into every wreck that occurs. It may : seem harsh, but' on a careful review of the' recent [cases' of the wrecks of the Ocean Mail, Queen Bee, and Itobina Dunlop, we cannot help thinking that iii the interests of the public it would have been well if the respective captains of these vessels had been each placed in such a position as never again to have command of a ship. '.".'/; .' j