SURVEY OF A SHIP.

Press, Volume LXIX, Issue 20789, 24 February 1933, Page 19

SURVEY OF A SHIP.

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED BY! OWNERS. | PETITION FOR COMPENSATION. [From Odr Pabliaium'ark Repobtek.] WELLINGTON, February 23. Charges of negligence against the Marine Department's surveyors and ; charges of wrong procedure against the Petitions Committee were made in thet House of Representatives this afternoon when the committee reporting for the second time on the petition of Cygnet, Ltd., of Christchurch, for compensation, declared that since no further evidence had been presented it had no further recommendation to make. Mr H. T. Armstrong (Lab., Christchurch East) described the report as astounding. Partner evidence, he said, had been given before tho committee, and in his opinion had completely satisfied members. The Minister for Lands was then not present, but at a subsequent meeting, when the evidence was considered and a decision was made, he had dominated the committee. Outline of the Case. ': The facta of the case, as outlined by j Mr Armstrong, were stated whon the 1 petition, first came before the House j at the end of last year. ' On the authority of the marine surveyor at Christchurch the firm of Cygnet, Ltd., had had repairs made to the ship Cygnet costing £IOBO. Five weeks after; wards, when the ship was in Wellington, she had been found to be totally unseaworthy. in Air Armstrong's opinion, not only were the lives of the crew jeopardised by tho surveyor's faulty recommendation, but the company was put to an expense of more than £IOOO when a few weeks later tho ship had to be abandoned. The Marine Department, he said, had. explained that the Christchurch officer had not been in good health when he examined the ship, and had discharged him on account of ill-health. "I am not so much concerned about the claim," said Mr Armstrong, "as I am that an officer of the Department should allow the ship to go to sea in this condition. If the hole had not been discovered soon after, while the vessel was in Wellington, the Cygnet, with all hands, would bo. at the bottom of the sea. The wrecks of the Ripple and the Kotiti were due to the same causes, and it is time the Government made a proper investigation of -the whole position." He contended that if the committee had discussed the evidence on the day it was given the recommendation would have been favourable. In this caso, however, the meeting was called a week later, and the question was dealt with by members of the committee who had not heard the evidence The chairman of the committee (Mr E. F. Healy): That is not a fact. Mr Armstrong: Well, only two or three of them were there. I believe the Minister dominated the situation. Mr Healy: That is not true. Mr Amiserong: I fancy he did on the j first occasion, and it would not be hard i to lead the chaiman of thi3 committee J in any direction. j "Chairman Bully-ragged. *' I Mr D. McDougall (C, Mataura) complained that the chairman had . been : Bully-ragged into making a decision which was most unfair. The company had a moral if not a legal right to compensation. It was ridiculous .if ships were to be passed by government officers in such a reckless way. Mr P. Fraser (Lab., Wellington Central), while agreeing it was a serious j matter that lives-should be in danger on' account of the Marine Department's negligence, expressed his surprise that any firm should invest in a ship of that type which was 40 years old. "We ought to discourage the use of such ships on the New Zealand coast," he said. "I do not think the owners of the Cygnet are entitled to much sympathy. But the point is that the ownem were misled by the Department's report. Surely the committee has some finding to safeguard men from these coffin ships." The Minister for Marine (the Hon. J. G. Cobbe) said he would make a careful enquiry into the facts disclosed. At the same time he did riot think it right that members should make charges against the Department that they had. The appointments of surveyors were very carefully made; in fact, some members had lately criticised the Government for being too careful and setting too stiff examinations. A Charge Denied. The Minister for Lands (the Hon. E. A. Ransom) strongly denied the charge that he had dominated the committee. All members had been summoned to the second meeting, and no attempt was made to influence their judgment. A ship in such a condition as the Cygnet was the responsibility of the owners as much as that of the Department. The ship might have sprung a .minor leak, but he thought its condition had been exaggerated. It would be an absurd situation if the responsibility for every ahip after examination was placed on the Department. Mr J A. Macpherson (C. Oamaru) aaicl that Lloyd's and all the 'marine authorities of the world would not accept responsibility in such a case. Mr H. G. R. Mason (Lab., Auckland Suburbs) said the duty of the Department was to protect the interests ot the public, but it was not acting\as the agent or servant of the owner of the vessel, nor was it called on to advise the owner about the condition of his property, which should ho withm his own knowledge. "If there was negligence on the part of the surveyor there was negligence oa the part ot tho owner to a greater..degree," said Mr Mason. After further discussion the was laid on the table.