THE LOST YONGALA.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXII, Issue 10259, 10 June 1911, Page 7

THE LOST YONGALA.

THE ENQUIRY RESUMED. EXPERT EVIDENCE GIVEN. United Press Association—By Electric Telegraph—Copyright. (Received June 9, 9.30 a.m.) BRISBANE, June 9. The enquiry into the circumstances attending the loss of the Yongala was resumed to-day. Mr Wareham, representing the company, in giving evidence, said the Yongala was a stiff nautical ship, fully equipped with nautical instruments. The captain was an excellent seaman. He had been given no orders to push the ship owing to keen competition. Witness said he had heard of no complaints of passengers as to the Yongala's alleged excessive rolling. Personally, he thought the vessel was immune from any oiher form of disaster than striking a rock. Judging from the small quantity of cargo recovered, and the quantity was very small, a hole must have been torn in the vessel's bottom, and she must have foundered very quickly. The Yongala cost £lo2,ooo,'and was insured for £6".000 —the Company itself carrying ihe balance of the risk.

Captain Hansen, stevedore, stated in evidence that the Yongala's cargo was safely stowed. It was impossible that any'of the cargo should have shifted. The vessel had never been so light on her upper deck in any previous voyage, and she rolled a bit, but not more than other ships.

Captain Rothwell, Government pilot, was of the opinion that the Yongala met the full force of the gale at midnight, and had simply foundered. The search he had made had disclosed no evidence to show that the vessel struck a rock. Possibly some of the cargo had shifted, otherwise a vessel like the Yongala would have weathered the storm. He did not suggest any negligence in stowage. There was nothing lacking in either ship, officers, or crew. Mr Superintendent of Wharves, deposed that the Yongala was a tender, but a safe ship. She rolled heavily, and it took only a few tons on either side to give her a list, liu,t she righted steadily, and there was no danger. The vessel could not, in his opinion, have been better found, or equipped. The cargo might haveshifted, but he had never known it to do so before. His opinion was that the disaster was caused by striking some obscured object, or obstruction. Other evidence given stipportedthe seaworthiness and proper equipment of the vessel, and established that no complaints by either captain or officers against the sailing capacities of the steamsr had ever been made.