THE PATE A MAIL. Established 1875. FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1884 BLUNDERS AT SEA.

Patea Mail, Volume IX, Issue 1137, 11 January 1884, Page 2

THE PATE A MAIL. Established 1875. FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1884 BLUNDERS AT SEA.

The totally inadequate punishment, meted out by the Court, to masters of vessels, sueli as Captain Brotherton, is attracting general attention just now. The ease of the Triumph is bad enough in all conscience, and it seems but a slight punishment that the capiain’s certificate should be suspended for three years. It ought to have been cancelled for ever, and, if possible, ho ought to receive five years imprisonment for losing snch valuable property of bis owners, and running snch a terrible risk of losing life ns well. Moreover, the enquiry hardly seems to have reached the bottom of the affair. We have heard nothing about the irregularities 'alluded to by the immigration officers, nor about the t‘ high jinks ” said to hj ive been carried on in port. All that has been elicited is that the captain went to sleep on the bridge and that the steamer was quietly allowed to run full tilt at a lighthouse. It is incredible. We cannot understand it. But bad and all as the Triumph case is, it is surpassed by that of the steamer Tasman, the wreck of which look place a short lime ago under astounding circumstances. The vessel, a large one, was on the passage between Sydney and Hobart, On the night of the wreck the captain left the bridge at 11 o’clock, Shorten Island being then in sight, and the steamer steering n course to clear it. Before going below, he gave the chief officer strict orders to steer a given course, and to keep outside certain rocks known ns the Hippolytcs. At half-past five in the morning, the vessel struck something on the inside of the outer rock, and in fifteen minutes went down in 80 fathoms of water. Fortunately all the passengers were saved, though net without risk and difficulty. How came the steamer there, the reader will ask, when the captain gave strict orders to keep outside the rocks. In this case the officer in charge did not go to sleep. At the enquiry, the chief officer admitted that lie “ deliberately disobeyed the orders of the captain to go outside the Hippolylo rocks.” He told the assessors that he disobeyed orders to save time, and gave as an excuse that he was acting in the interests of the owners because there was a lot of cattle on board. What punishment did the court of enquiry award to this man ? He had, as we have just seen, deliberately disobeyed the orders of his superior officer. He had wrecked a ship valued at between £30,000 and £40,000. Ho had risked the lives of a large nnmbor of men, women and children, and himself narrowly escaped being indicted for murder. For these grave offences, his certificate was suspended for twelve months. It is a crying shame that snch a monstrously inadequate punishment should ever bo recorded in a court of justice. If ever there was a case deserving the severity of the law it was this one. But in dealing with disasters of the sen, or rather the carelessness of those who cause the disasters, our nautical Courts seem to vio with each other in the lightness of the sentences awarded, which instead of acting as a

deterrent, seem almost to offer a premi ntil forisobed ionce and insubordination 6n hoard ship. It is high time that a change were made in the method of dealing with these nautical culprit For an offence on shore, equivalent in magnitude to the Triumph or Tasman affair, a very different punishment would have been awarded. Why then are such distinctions observed ?