South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2560, 4 June 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, SATURDAY, JUNE 4, 1881.

t ■ • The Court appointed to enquire into the loss of the Tararua have at last brought their labors to a conclusion. The judgment was published in yesterday’s issue. The Court came to the decision that there was a lamentable want of discipline on board the ill-fated vessel, and that the chief blame rests on Captain Garrard, who has paid the penalty of his neglect with his life. The late commander of the Tararua was on all sides highly spoken of. He had the qualities which endear a man to those with whom he comes in contact. We heard a master mariner of the old school express himself some time back that the only thing which seems to be required now-a-daya in a skipper, was a gentlemanly demeanour and an aptitude for making oneself agreeable. Seamanship was of secondary consideration. Captain Garrard was a noble specimen of the British seaman. Young, active, intelligent, and brave, he was well fitted to occupy a subordinate position. Since he joined the Union Company he had made several mistakes, but they were overlooked, probably on account of his youth, and with the idea that time would render him more careful. Captain Garrard has lost his life through causes for which the Court has held him primarily responsible, and the Union Company has gained experience by the loss of many valuable lives. According to the judgment of the

Court everyone in a responsible position on the Btearaer appears to have been to blame. These are the words telegraphed : 11 Astonishment was expressed that the officers of the Tararua were ignorant of the deviations of the compass, but in view of the peculiar discipline on board, the Court were riot disposed to say to what degree, if any, the ignorance was attributable to their neglect.” The certificates of both first and second officers were returned. Landsmen labor under the delusion that the chief officer of a ship is able to take the command at a moment’s notice, but here is a case where on a large passenger steamer trading on a dangerous coast, with few lighthouses, the chief officer was unacquainted with such an essential matter as the deviation of the compass. The Court of Enquiry have made several recommendations, but they have left out one of very great importance. Captain Garrard is dead and gone, and anything which the Court says cannot affect him. But the Union Company is a living concern. The Court has condemned the Company by inference. It hesitated to speak out plainly in the matter. The Union Company is responsible for the discipline of its ships. That should not be left to any captain in the service. A code of rules should be laid down, and any variation from them should not be allowable. That much is imperatively necessary for the sake of those who trust their lives upon the deep. It was a sad piece of neglect which allowed the Tararua to run on Waipapa Point, and after the steamer was ashore there was a terrible amount of bungling. No one appears to have known what to do. The Court recommended that the crew should have boat practice at stated intervals. People will ask, what was the use of boats at all on board the Tararua if there was no assurance that in times of emergency the crew would be able to launch them with a degree of safety ? The Court came to the conclusion that there were sufficient boats and lifebelts for the crew and passengers on board the steamer, but recommended in future that all vessels trading in New Zealand water should be compelled to carry lifebelts for the maximum number of passengers and crew. The recommendation is a good one, but the Court might have drawn attention to the fact that at the time of the disaster there were only about half-a-dozen lifebelts available. It would have added force to the recommendation, as showing the absence of those life-saving appliances on board the boats of that Company which has almost a monopoly of the coasting trade of New Zealand. The Court let the Company off easily, not only in this, but in a matter of more immediate moment. It thought assistance should have been rendered from the Bluff or Invercargill, for no passenger vessel on a rock could be considered in other than in a dangerous position. That was what was in everyone’s mouth when news of the alarming nature of the disaster first became known. However, people were assauged by repeated assurances that even if steamers had proceeded at the earliest possible period to the scene of the wreck the loss of a single life could not have been averted ; that the unfortunate persons who were clinging to the wreck were beyond all earthly succour either from the land cr sea side. Still an uneasy suspicion remained in the minds of most men, and the judgment of the Court has confirmed them in their suspicion.

The judgment attaches no blrme to any living person or persons in particular. It is only the dead who come in for censure. But the default, nevertheless, will be put on the right shoulders. The representatives of the Union Company showed wilful neglect, callousness, or ignorance in not exerting themselves in sending assistance to the 140 souls who were in momentary danger of losing their lives. The fate of those on board the Tararna forms the most melancholy chapter of marine disasters in New Zealand. It is a record of carelessness, want of judgment, bad discipline, and, above all, shameless inhumanity in those who were in power in not sending assistance to their fellow mortals, who, with death staring them in the face, waited for the help which was denied them. Captain Garrard clinging to the mast with a sailor’s child in his arms and Dr Campbell being swept whilst setting the broken limb of the engineer are instances of men who knew how to do their duty in the hour of danger. It was those safe on shore, removed from the scene of the wreck, who, from sordid reasons, failed in their clear and imperative duty to rescue the drowning.