WARATAH INQUIRY.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1060, 24 February 1911, Page 5

WARATAH INQUIRY.

—4 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT. THE VESSEL SEAWORTHY AND j STABLE. OWNERS' STRANGE SILENCE. (Kt-c. February 23, 10 p.m.) By Telegraph—Press Association-Copyright. London, Vobruary 22. i'lia judgment of the. Court of Inquiry, sot up by the Board ■of Trade to investigate the circumstances surrounding the loss of tho Luud liner Waratah states that the vessel was properly equipped and manned nml the cargo properly stowed. There suflicie.nt stability, and tho steamer was seaworthy. She was lost during a storm j probably sho capsized. However, the chain of circumstauccs rcmaius undetermined. . ... The Court is unable to understand the maintciianco of silenco concerning tho stability and behaviour at sea of tho Waratah when on her maiden voyage. This silence almost compels nn. inference unfavourable to the owners of tho vessel. Probably Capsized. Tho judgment states that there' is only conflicting indirect evidence to go upon, 6ut owing to tho absence of wreckage the Court is of opinion that tho vessel, capsized in a gale of exceptional violence during the first great storm she encountered. • ... The Court dismissed tho theory that tlio loss was' due to explosion in' the bunker coal. 'I,'he Waratah wa.9 properly supplied with boats and-life-saving appliances, and tho creiv was considerably in excess of the Board of Trade .'requirements. It was thought that an early opportunity might bo taken, however, to consider whether the requirements were sufficient for large passenger "ships. ' A Suggestion.' The Court suggested that a committee of experts should bo appointed to decide the '.'minimum stability requirements for different types of vessels, including tho curves of stability to be insisted upon. Rules for;the'stowage of cargo should ho framed by'the builders for the guidance of shipowners,' , ./: Strange Indifferenca. Discussing Mr. F. . Lund's assurance that Captain' Ilbery, commander of the Waratali, did" not report regarding his shipVmaiden voyage, the Court stated that- it was unablo to understand Captain Ilbery's 'silence concerning stability. It was contrary to tho'whole practice of shipowners and shipmasters to treat the question as a ''matter of indifference a3 Mr. Lund and Captain Ilbery had treated it-' . 1 . Tho inference unfavourable to the owners was greatly strengthened .by. tho correspondence With the builders. Apparently difficulty-.arose during the initial loading, and tho presumption was that tho Waratah .was a tender ship when she started on her maiden voyage.- ; Owner's Evidence Criticised. Tho Court considered neither Mr. F. Lund nor Mr. Peck, for the- builders, gave a complcto nccountof the interview of April -3, but it was added that it could, only leave the matter there. Tho report sharply commented on Mr. Lund's uso of the word"bluff" regarding his letters, to. tho builders..-.The evidonco showed that tho difficulty with tho ship was not surmounted on the outward and hojiieward journeys, but tenderness 'in tho ■upright position did not necessarily.:', involve instability, at large angles of inc)in-i ation. ' ', The Waratah's "Tenderness," ,Tho explanation of the large , amount of adverse comment lay in tho -Waratah's •undoubted tenderness during her first voyago and whilst loading. In such condition quito observable lists could lie-pro-duced by moderato wind pressures,.by relatively 1 small alterations in tho water ballast, by tho consumption of the fresh' yater oh board, and .by tho non-symmetri-cal working out of tho coal. • Tho' Court regarded tho contradictory statements regarding the ship's rolling as tho. fairly accurate evidence of truthful people about phenomena which they . did not understand. Tho'judgment discredited the story of the*discovery pf bodies by the steamer Tottenham. MR: LUND'S. EVIDENCE. > In tho course of his evidence while under cross-examination by Mr. Laing, Mr. F. W. Lund, ono of tho owners and managers.of the Lund Line, referred to Captain Ilbery's reports as follqws:— ■ Mr. Laing: Did Captain Ilbery,' in his letters, say anything at nil about tho behaviour of the ship or' how sho got on on her first voyage?— No. Did he not make any reports, good; bad, or indifferent, about tho.behaviour of the Waratah'?—None at all. They had not kept back any of - t(ie, communications they had received froni.Cnptaiii Ilbery. Mr. Laing: On Captain Ilbery's return after the first voyage of '.the Wnratah, did lie make any report to you'verbally about her?— Yes; ho said sho iwas satisfactory iir every way, and an easy ship in a heavy sea. ; Now I want you to be very careful about this. Did lie say anything about her-stability? Yes; he said that when she was in a light conditions she might not be so stiff as tho Cieelong, hut lie ■ did not'express any wish that she should be altered in any shnpo or form. V Did ho ever 'say that the Waratah was not as stable at sea as the Geelong?— Never. lii view of what had been stated byCaptain Ilbery, representations-had been mndo to the builders that the contract condition that the WpVatalr should have greater stability than - the-Geelong had not been fulfilled, but Mr, I'eck; ono. of tho partners, was able to satisfy him absolutely by calculations that the Waratah was quite as stablo as tho No alterations were made or suggested in tho original design of tha Waratah, and lie had never expressed any adverse opinion as to the cant of the vessoK Questioned as to letters written by lu3 firm to Messrs. Barclay, Curie, and Co., the builders, stating that the Waratah so stabta as tho Geelong, and that.the builders would be held responsible for anything that might happen if she was moved light in, dock, witness stotp<l that in the interview, which he had with Mr. I'eck, representing the build 1 ers, ho < assured him that she lind been moved in dock in Glasgow perfectly light and without any ballast, ami that it would l)n quite safe to do so in London. [They also discinsed tho lines of the ship, the question of her water ballast and coal supply, and Captain Ilbery's stato>ment that in light trim the Geelong was a stiffer ship tliau tho Waratah. lie might linvo said that Captain-Ilbery had convinced him on this point, but Mr. I'eck satisfied him that Captain IJ lory was wrong, and that tho Waratali in a light condition was n stabler ship than (lie Geelong. Ho accepted thnt statement, as it .was never a matter of serious complaint on tho part of Captain Ilbery. Tie could not recollect whether tho question of demurrage, on the gromul of whicli thev . wero making n claim against the builders, was mentioned at tho interview, and the question' of the stability of the Wnratah never was referred to afterwards in any communication with the builders. ' lir. Buck nil 1: Did you ever write to tho builder.- suggesting that , the fact of the Waratah not having.as much stability ns the Geelong might 1» ft ground for •your ifettinp bock jwvt of. tho j>urclif\SQ roii*\v or getting some compensation from the builders? Witness No. • Then all the letters that you had written previously referring to the stability Of the Wnratah (ind the fl«k of .marfng h»r light iu ware merely bluff ?- Tluv were not serious letters, ,