THE WRECK OF THE TASMANIA.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 9836, 20 September 1897, Page 3

THE WRECK OF THE TASMANIA.

THE. NAUTICAL ENQU/RY.

(PRESS ASSOCIATION TELEGRAM.)

AUCKLAND, September 18.

At the Tasmania inquiry, Mr Tole said the Court was addreseed yesterday by Mr Campbell, who said he would not go into details ; but it was absolutely necessary in a case of this sort to go iafco detaib most carefully. Mr oampbell had gone at some length into the question of negligence. He (Mr Tole) would define negligence as doing something which no prudent or reasonable man would do, or omitting to do something which should be done by a prtident and reasonable man. There were persons charged with negligence in this case, and the onus was thrown on them of showing how the vessel came to be wrecked. The total defence or excuse raised by Mr Campbell appeared to be that there Mas some mysterious influence or force outside the ship herself which caused the disaster. The answer of Mr Campbell was that the Captain set a proper course, and that outside forces or currents were responsible for the accident. There were four or five questions of importance in this matter, the first and greatest of which was what was the cause uf the accident, on a short run, on a well-known coast, where the dangers were all well known and clearly defined ? The survey of Capt. Neale and Mr Armstrong showed conclusively that there were no uncharted dangers in the vicinity, and practically confirmed the Admiralty charts of forty-two or forty-three years' standiug. There was nothing wrong with the compasses of the ship, and if she were in a safe course, how was it she struck inside Table Cape? The answers to these questions placed a very grave responsibility on the captain and third officer. If vessels kept off their proper course they might expect to find dangers, but there was no evidence of any dangei'3 on a safe course, which had been travelled for the past half century in safety. The only two officers who could have given an explanation of the mishap were the captain and third officer, and both of them gave as their reason for the mishap that there was strong inset to the westward. This theory of an inset, however, must be thrown out of consideration, for the wreckage was carried northwards to Gisborne from the wreck ; while, as for the tide, the ebb tide set round the cape to the southward. Captain Neale said if there was any inset ifc was just round the cape. There were no rocks. That was proved absolutely, and the charts were proved accurate by a most careful survey. The rocks were gone, the inset was gone, and they were driven to this conclusion— that the departure from Gisborne, as given, was not taken, or else the course, as given, was not adhered to. The ship was obedient to her helm; she steered well and was clean. There was no fault in the ship herself. The point for the Court was, did the captain set the course as given, and was that course kept. If the captain had taken the course given from the given bearings off Gisborne then the ship would never have been wrecked. The given course would have taken her clear of Table Cape. Then how was the vessel wrecked ? The distance between the true course and the point where Captain McGee said she struck was between three and four miles, and this was in a short run of only sixteen or seventeen miles, which would show a deviation of about one mile in every four run, and would give the ship a speed of only eight knots, whereas she was shown in the evidence to have been going over ten. The fact of the third officer altering the ship's course two points when land was seen showed that the ship was not on a safe course, and the captain grasped that instantly when he came on deck. Moreover, for half-an-hour before that the ship must have been headingstraight for land. Mr Tole denied that there was any animus on Mr Clayton's part against Captain McGee. Mr Clayton did not volunteer his evidence, and the allegation of animus was absurd. The ship could not have struck at a place two miles north of the cape, as the captain said, in deep water around where there were fifteen or sixteen fathoms of water. There would not have been a soul left to tell the sad tale. The fact was clearly evident that the vessel had struck on the outlying jagged rocks jutting out from north of the Peninsula and the Cape. The evidence of the second officer was that ho saw land on both bows when he got on deck after she struck. There was the evidence of several ot the officers that the steamer had not drifted away when land was seen, as described by the second officer, and there was also evidence that the Portland light had just flashed into sight when the ship struck. This showed that the vessel struck in the intersection just between seeing the flash-light and coming round the Cape. The captain had admitted saying he could have kept in closer than his given course, and could yet have been on a safe course. Regarding the bearings taken at Gisborne, there was evidence of Mr Clayton to show that the cliffs of Young Nick's Head were only two or three miles away from the ship at eight o'clock, whereas the capcaiu said his bearings showed him to be three and three-quarter miles or four miles off the Head. If the Court took a Hue on the course given by the captain from a point three miles off tho Head, it would just place the ship on the exact spot where all the evidence went to show she struck. He submitted that the fact of the loss of the ship showed that it was incredible that the captain could have given the course described if his bearings were correct, or else he placed too much reliance in those whom he left in charge on deck. Mr Tote went on to allude to Mr McGrath's youth and his inexperience on this run, and said the captain, knowing the weather was bad, left the deck in charge of Mr McGrath without giving him any more instructions than he would have given to the most experienced officer. The third officer, moreover, had admitted he did not know the deviation of the compass, and the fact that he did not lock back to see where the Gisborne light was, with other circumstances, showed over confidence on his part. This locality was the most critical part of the coast line, and would it have been too much to expect the captain to have remained on deck for another hour or two until the ship was safely round? There was no evidence that the captain was ill or worn out, and, knowing the inexperience of the third officer, it was his duty to have remained by him till the Cape was rounded, or else to have given him more specific instructions. Mr Brabant said he understood the captain to have said that he wanted to be called when the Portland light was seen, for his work would then commence for the night, as Mahia round the Cape was a "critical place. Mr Tole said—No, the critical point was before the Cape was rounded. He then went on to refer to the condition and order of the boats, and referred to the captain taking his boat all the way through a bad sea to Gisborne, twenty miles away, instead of landing at a better place. There was evidence of remissness on the captain's part in connection with the boat voyage. As to the third officer, the evidence showed he could not have steered the course alleged if it were properly set. It was very easy te I say there waa an inset, but there was no evidence to support that. The third officer was told to set the log, and he set ie at nothing, but never looked at it again to see what speed the ship was going. This and other circumstances showed lamentable remissness on the third officer's part. The warnings as to this part of the coast in the " Pilots " were very clear. Mr Tole then commented on the evidence given as to the want of a plug in one boat and to the noni efficiency of pome of the oars and other equipments. Hβ did not think that the evidence was conclusive as to efficiency of the boate. In conclusion, Mr Tole submitted that the evidence proved there was careless and negligent navigation, on the part of the captain especially, and the fact of the vessel being off her course four miles i in a position mathematically fixed was an I irresistible proof of negligent navigation. I The evidence of the captain and the third ; oflker was valueless, for their chief object I would be to excuse their actions. It- was j not to bo expected that they would do I otherwise. He"would submit to the Court I they had judicial authority for discarding the" evidence' of the captain «in<i other officers concerned &3 to the negligence or otherwise of Hie navigation, and be quoted I the case of Staples v Joseph, " New Zealand I Liw Reports " (Appeal Court), i:» connection with the wreck of the small steamer Tin. of Wellington, a claim for lose of cargo. Id thii c*»» the Court discredited tho

principal evidence, that of the captain, as to the steering of the vessel, and the Court held that the captain did not steer the course he said he had. If he had, the wreck would not have happened, and there was, therefore, proof of negligent navigation. It was within the power of the Court to discard the evidence of the captain and chief officer altogether if they thought fit and to imply gross negligence in the fact of the ship being found in a place where she should not have been. No question of sentiment should be allowed to enter into the consideration of the issu.es. There might be a secret history locked up in the breasts of those chiefly concerned which would explain the wreck, but the Court could not get at that, if it existed. All they could do would be to draw conclusions from the evidence adduced. The enquiry would prove a valuable one in the interests of the public. There was, he contended, irresistible grounds for coming to the conclusion that the vessel had come to her wreck through gross negligence on the part of those in charge, and the interests of the community, the lives of the crews, and the safety of the travelling public imperatively demanded most careful consideration being given in order to arrive at the true cause of the wreck.

Mr Brabant, after consulting hie assessors, said—l propose to give the decision of the Court on Tuesday morniug at 10 o'clock. I don't think I can have it ready before then.

Mr Campbell—Mr Willcock, the chief officer, would like to get away on Monday evening.

Mr Tole said it was a question for the Covirt to consider whether there wae not some responsibility attaching to Mr Willcock in respect of the condition of the boats.

Mr Brabant—l don't think you intended to formulate auy charge against the first officer. He appeared to have very little to do with the navigation of the ship when she was lost, and I don't suppose you wanted to argue that he was to be held to blame for the navigation.

Mr Tole said—Not at all. But he was wondering whether he could not be connected with the question of the condition of the boats, for which, perhaps, he might have been considered responsible.

Mr Brabant said—The Court thinks the chief officer may be allowed to go on Monday. He has already been kept here a long time, and I think the assessors agree with no serious blame can be attached to him.

Mr Willcock's certificate was then returned to him.