The Westport Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1869.

Westport Times, Volume III, Issue 586, 27 November 1869, Page 2

The Westport Times. SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 27, 1869.

The wreck of the cutter Harry Bluff at the port of Charleston, arid its attendant loss of life, are circumstances which must be fresh in the memory of our readers. It will be remembered, also, in connection with that disaster that an attempt was made by the owner and master of the cutter to place the responsibility of the accident upon the local Harbor-Master, Capt. Beveridge. Practically their argument was that the Harbor-Master had exhibited the signal " Take the bar," and that this signal applied equally to vessels inward or outward bound. This conception of the object of harbor signals was neither accepted by the gentleman before whom the official inquiry was held, nor could it be accepted by anyone pretending to the slightest knowledge as to the use of the Colonial code of signals, or as to the practice generally prevailing in bar harbors. The matter, however, stands no longer as the subject of debate, if it ever could for a moment be debated. The Colonial Marine Engineer, Mr Balfour, realising the importance of the question, and to prevent any further wilful or accidental misconception, has already issued a circular which will, no doubt, receive as it deserves, the widest diffusion. Mr Balfour at once and uumistakeably states that " the Colonial bar signals are intended for the information of inward-bound vessels, and not for the information of outward-bound craft." And the principle which he lays down, and which is peculiarly applicable to the harbor of Charleston, is that "masters of outward-bound craft must themselves be responsible for crossing the bar, seeing that they have the same opportunity of observing its condition as the Harbor-Master himself." But he adds "They ought, moreover, if in doubt, to consult the Harbor-Master as to the advisability of attempting to go out," and this is exactly what was not doue in the recent case at Charleston. It fact it is not even a mere matter of option to do so; for, although it rather enhances the responsibility of a HarborMaster to au unreasonable extent, there exists the regulation which was more than once neglected or despised at Charleston, that, under a penalty, "no master shall unmoor or quit the anchorage, without having previously obtained the permission of the Har-bor-Master or his Deputy to do so." In conclusion Mr Balfour affirms what, of course, must he generally understood, that " the use of the Colonial bar signals must not be considered to do away with flag signals. Should a Harbor-Master wish to convey information, to the master of any vessel making for the bar, of a more precise nature than can be conveyed by the ball and semaphore signals, he may at all times have recourse to Marryatt's or the Commercial Code of Signals." This, we daresay, has already been sufficiently understood, yet there have been cases—at Hokitika, for instance —where it has not been acted upon although it was requisite, nor is it likely to be acted upon in all cases of emergency until coasting vessels are more generally furnished with codes of signals, or until one or other of the common codes is definitely adopted as the universal code of these Colonies.