TAINUI INQUIRY.

Taihape Daily Times, Volume XI, Issue 3326, 3 November 1919, Page 6

TAINUI INQUIRY.

THE‘ -CC) URT’S DING.

CHRISTCHURCH, Oct. 31. The judgment of the Nautical Court which inquired into ‘-the loss of the 'stean.l‘el* ‘T'a.‘inui on Se',p'\tem'ber 16'-th,, when on a voyage from‘Lyt-teltron to Wanganui with a. cargo of be-nzine, was delivered to-day. The Court found:—(a) That the regulations fcgax-ding the shipment and carriage at sea of pefroleum were not complied With. (b) That due care was. not exercisedin the storage of the petroleum on the I

said ship. (c) That. the said ship was not‘safe and suitable fol'- the reception and conveyance of petroleurm (-d) Tins and cases containing petuirum were leaking to such an ,=.xe'nt as to rcndel- it unsafe for the vessel for

pit to sea. '_ (e")= ma": all the life-saving appuances, with the exception :0f the life--12:-at, ‘.1291-e eflicient and available. The life).-oat was" available, but was too light and had insufficient floor space. The .=‘.'ew Zealand Refrigerating Compmy} Sihe owners of [the vessel, were orderec. to pay costs of the in.l:liry, ar.lo=.-nti_l..g to £461 _lB/7. DRASTIC CRITICISM BY. THE COURT.

In an annex to its report, the Nautical Court, after referring to the previous rejection of benzine cargo on September 12th, says: “The Ta.inui’S holds were repaired, but neither was benzine—pl-roof, due to the fact that absorbant materials used for frozen meat insulation were unsuitable for Abenzine. After reference to the highly dangerous nature of benzine, the Court says that on September 15th there was waiting shipment at Lyttelton a cargo of benzine and pluoughs, the ffenzine including the rejected cargo discharged from the Tainui three days previously. Mr Smilie said he was only aware of this on the 15th,_ but a watersider said he heard him_ say on the 12th that he would ar-i range for its transfer on the ship’sJ next. trip . The waterside'r’s evidence‘ was more feasible, and had been accept- ' ed. '.ln the earlier part of the day the‘ captain had given orders to the mate] thlalt ~nio- ‘leaking -cases were to be placed in either holds, particularly the after-3 hold. Thereat'ter both the captainband the mate stood gy and saw this order di~sre_garded without making remonstrance of any kind. Mr Smillie was on and about the ship at intervals I during the day, and could not faili to see the leaking condition -of tlfel cargo, and that yleaking cases were be- I ing placed in the holds. -Later a, fur- I ther order was given that only badly leaking cases were to be rejected from E the holds and placed on the fol'\\'al'dl deck. Cases were loaded on the decks in slings, and leaking cases reurovedl therefrom. This operation was found ‘ too slow. After the7first six slings were disposed of the remainder were sent ‘direct to the 1-.0161. ’ The leakage on the floor on the hold of a not inconsiderable quantity’ of benzine was caused. Wood and sawdust would quickly absorb the benzine. The worst cargo was placed on the forward hold } to prevent, as far as possible benzine I fumes getting into the crew ’s quarters, Ithis obviating any trouble with the‘ crew at «least. Before sailing the stow- ’ age was negligent on two grounds. 1

None of the leaking cases should have been allowed on the ship, and ploughs I should not have been ‘allowed in the same hold with and on top of a ben- I Zine. cargo. It. was unreasonable to‘ expect any ofiicer to stsow his ship of 1 his own volition. The only reasonable inference was that the captain and mate were acting under orders, if not as to the manner of stowage atleast as to the necessity 10f getting the cargo away. Any other hyathesis would mean that voluntarily each oificer set out on his fateful voyage with almost tertain death facing the crew and "themselves. . - . - Regaitling the refusal bit‘ the crew to sail in March, which led to their dismissal, and the subsequent dimissal of Captain Willl3lllS'Cll, the‘ Court drew the“ inference that he was dismissed because he supported ‘theorem’ in -their refusal to sail in an unseaworthy sliip with a dangerous cargo. In the matter of contravention, by three of the Refrigerating Company’s captains, of the daylight sailing regulations, the Court -said the owners at one time Verbally reprimanded ‘one captain for disobedience in not carrying ‘out their instructions. After this reprimand, several night journeys were made across the Straits under (verbal) from the -Wellington agents, but these journeys were known to the owners, and it was not suggested. that the offending manager, agents andcaptain had been in any way dealt with——it therefore appeared that instructions t. carry out the intentions of the Admiralty were not intended to ‘be obeyed_ On September 12th the Coni'pany_ proposed to sail with -an un¥ safe cargo, and were only prevented by a member of the crew, at the instigation ofuhis commdes, seeking the initervention of the Marine Department. "In connection with any stricture the :Court,liad made as to the ship putting l-to sea with an unsafe cargo, it must fz“lot'~be overlooked that the owners had

5116. oflicerg possessing marine cf\'l3cl'i-

snce. As the result of "the stowage, each hold; after it had been battened dgvfn’ became a gasometer, from which gas could freely escape to other ‘ parts of the ship, including the stoke- ‘ hold. The leaking cases in each hold ’ would have been suflicient to give this ' result. Eight hours after the sailing "lof the ship, the fireman on watch ‘ would be cleaning out his fire and re- ' stoking——W. Townsend was the only ' man on the ship who was singed ‘-.vith fire and he was the fireman on watch at this time. In the ConlmisSion’s opinion, when the fireman on watch started to pull out his fires, gas fumes in the s-tokehold ignited and caused an explosion in the forehold. An attempt to launch the lifeboat after the accident was made. It was not suggested that belts and ‘buoys’ were inefficient. It transpired that it

would have been better if none had left the -sh"i'p_ If all had remained aboard, they would, in all human prob- 3 ability, have been saved. The lifeboat was too light in construction, and l: insufficient floor space. The evidence Vcontradicted the log, which said that lifeboat (11-111 was 1-6-kgu-larly held monthly. » l Answering the issues set for deciksion, the Court found (1) ‘that the. fiegulations regarding the s'hip.mellt§ and carriage at sea of petroleum. were .= not eoinplied with. The bulkheads of| the ship, whilst they may ha\'-.‘. been| alright and watertig‘-_lt for the pup] poses of carrying frozen meat on; short trips, were not capable of hold- I inlg benzine or benzine fumes. The . benzine itself leaked through the ; floors of the insulations and bulkheads I into bilges and then flowed under the ‘ boiler. I E (2) Due care was not exer-eise-~.{ inr the storage of petroleznu in the ship

.\s we‘llave already more ‘luau hinted. the manner of stowage rendered 1t almost impossib’.-_a for the sfiip to reach its journey’s end without an explo.‘s}()‘.l, I (3') The ship was 3. wo-:*len 0:10, and as constructed, it was not safe and suitable for the reception and conveyance of petrol. ‘An iron or steel ship‘ \V.l']l bullchemls of the 5-rlme metals, constructed and securely riveted to outer plating, is 't7.1::.» best an-1 only method of keeping holds air and water tight for petroleum_ (4) The cargo was iri such a condition that its reception on any vessel constituted it a source of danger, and the 10-l'dCl' for the reception was thel primary cause of ‘the explosion. Many’ of the receptacles were freely leakling. and those on board it was unsafe for the ship to put. to sea. t ._. _. ..n ___,_W M_uM__~___A__n

(5) The life-saving appliances were tin good order. We have already in; dicated the defects of the lifeboat. ;\.ttel' commenting :on- the regulations: !I‘egardillg' the carriage of petrol and} the contradictions between regulations 2 and (5, the Court made suggestions as -to lifeboats and lifeboat drilhl and concluded by expressing the opinion that the Marine Department’s L_v‘itr)lfOll staff was underinanned. At the conclu-sion of the judgment, Mr McCarthy, S.M., Cononer at the inquest, returned the following verdict: That the deceased, Charles Williams, EI)ll:1‘{1ill1 "GrreellWoodr, {\V:.'i.llioln' ‘Town, I send, Danie-l McLean, and Alexander, Fullen met their deaths by drowning! on September 16th, 19.19, between the hours of 2.30 and 6 a.ln., through being compelled, on account of an explosion of benzine gas, to leave the Tainui, on which they were serving, whilst the ; said ship was -at sea about four miles off the cozistline near Gore Bay. I I I