The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.) SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1875.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume III, Issue 259, 27 March 1875, Page 2

The Standard AND PEOPLE'S ADVOCATE. (PUBLISHED EVERY WEDNESDAY AND SATURDAY.)

SATURDAY, MARCH 27, 1875.

“ We shall sell to no man justice or right: We shall deny to no man justice or right: We shall defer to no man justice or right.”

We have been requested to draw special attention to a matter, which, — although it may be considered by some as without the pale of journalistic remark — contains the germ of a great and important principle, the proper understanding of which by the public generally, seems to be necessary, at it is evidently possessed of a large share of public interest. Private advices by the last mail from Auckland, informed us that the “ dismissal ” of Captain Fernandez, (it is an ugly word to be used in connection with the name of a man whose misfortune is his greatest fault, but it is the only expressive one) from the command of the Pretty Jane, had already been determined on by the Directors; and there was little or no hope that the A.S.P. Company would give him any other command: indeed the latter must be accepted as the only reasonable and intelligible corollary to the former. As we have said before, this is simply a question as between master and servant. The Directors have a perfect right to discontinue the services of any of their employees, if they think that such a course is compatible with a furtherance of the interests of the shareholders ; but it must not be forgotten that the shareholders are a portion of the public ;

they have formed themselves into a public company, membership to which requires no condition beyond apunctual payment of entrance fees and calls—therefore, it is not too much to say that the subject of Captain Fernandez’ disconnection with the A.S.P. Company, involves a consideration of much importance to the maritime class generally. Looking upon the-position of affairs from this point of view, we would venture to offer a few remarks.

Although our sympathies are strong with Captain Fernandez, we do not desire to allow them to entrap us into an impertinent —because self-imposed —defence of that gentleman in connection with his share of the responsibility in the disaster which led to the temporary wreck of the Pretty Jane steamer. What we are asked to aim at now, is, to lead up to an enquiry as to the amount of responsibility that really does attach to masters of vessels while the pilot is in charge —where responsibility ends, and duty begins. Then we may ask is there any statutory, or other authority that clearly lays down and defines the whole duty of Captains and Pilots on board vessels ? We assume there is ; for matters of such weight to the maritime and mercantile communities of the world, could hardly be allowed to drift without chart or compass. Custom, or a generally accepted practice, would surely not be sufficient to fasten the penalty of mishap on the shoulders of the one, while the other went scot free. If there existed no written code, we can easily see the chaotic confusion that would ensue in the attempted execution of an undivided authority. Personal recrimination would upset all discipline, possibly in the hour of danger when individual authority should be autocratic and absolute ; and the loss of a ship may be attributed to the personal caprice, ill will, or mis-coneeption of duty by either party. It seems to he by no means clear that there is a well-known, and undeviating law and practice bearing upon this point; and a case which recently happened iu Auckland harbor fully illustrates that for which we contend; Captain McPhail was charged in the .Resident Magistrate’s Court with Wilfully interfering with Isaac James Burgess in the execution of his duty as pilot on board the British ship India.—Mr. Hesketh stated that he had advised defendant to plead guilty to the charge. He was instructed that Captain McPhail was suffering at the time from his having sprained his ankle a minute or two previously, and was not aware that the whole responsibility of the ship hud been transferred to the pilot.—Mr. Rnssell stated that the vessel was in the fair-way ; but in consequence of the orders given by defendant, she narrowly escaped being wrecked.—The Bench remarked upon the importance of captains having it impressed upon them that the pilots have absolute control over ships whilst in their charge. As it was the first ease of the kind against the defendant, they would inflict the mitigated penalty of £5 and costs. Now the basis upon which the argument for Captain Fernandez’ dismissal rests, is, that he was not on board the Pretty Jane at the time of her visit to the Big river, so as to take command from Captain Kennedy, and possibly, preventthe disaster. Further, we have heard it stated publicly by an officer of the Company—whose professional opinion we are bound to respect —that had Captain Fernandez been on board (and nothing but a mere miscalculation of clock time kept him from his post,) and, had he taken command from the Pilot, and have stranded the steamer himself, he would have been acquitted of any direliction of duty, and of any incompetency of seamanship; he would, possibly, have retained his position in the Company ; he would have become the hero of the hour, and been congratulated on wrecking a steamer without injuring his own reputation. Something is at fault. The circumstances in each of the above cases are admittedly, dissimilar ; but so are not the judgments. Captain McPhail is mulcted in a mitigated penalty of £5 and costs, for interfering with a pilot on board his own ship ; while Captain Fernandez suffers dismissal from the Service because he did not interfere and take command from the pilot! The Marine Act, and the Marine Board Act, both declare that the master of a vessel renders himself liable to a penalty of £5O if he should refuse to give up charge to a properly certificated pilot, which, wo take it, deprives the master of all navigating authority at least. Great stress, we are aware, has been laid on the fact that Captain Fernandez was not even on board of the Pretty Jane at the time of the accident; but, in the face of the decision of the Auckland Magistrates (assuming that to be correct) we cannot see how he could be blamed for not being in a position to do that which the law—if any there be —would not allow him to do. As we have said, something is wrong somewhere ; and, considering that the two judgments have been pronounced in the same community, within a few days of each other ; and taking in view the damaging effect the course adopted may have on Captain Fernandez’ future prospects, we trust that, iu the exercise of the manly, impartial, justice we all admire, and most of us endeavor to uphold, some one wil] yet be found to take the matter up, alike in Captain Fernandez’ interest, and for the satisfaction of the shareholders and the public.