LOSS OF THE STEAMER PROGRESS

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 199, 20 May 1931, Page 11

LOSS OF THE STEAMER PROGRESS

More Evidence Before Marine Court

CREW’S VERSION OF THE DISASTER

Mishap to Propeller at Wanganui Recalled

Seven more witnesses, including four members of the ship s company, gave evidence at the Magistrate’s Court yesterday, where the marine inquiry into the loss of the steamship Progress on May 1 was resumed. The second mate and three seamen gave accounts of the breakdown and subsequent events leading up to the wreck, and their versions were materially the same as the one given on the previous day by the master, Captain Copland. Two of them estimated the distance of the vessel from the shore when the tug reached it as two miles or more, and they considered the messenger rope from the tug had broken through the tug steaming ahead, which Captain Copland had explained was done in order to get into position. All had expected the tug to return, either immediately or at daybreak. So far during the inquiry there have been only glimpses of the tug’s side of the affair. This will probably be aired when the master of the tug gives evidence —perhaps to-day. With, different interests involved, Questions were directed yesterday toward the condition of the ship, especially the condition of the tail-shaft, and some of the evidence dealt with the mishap at Wanganui before Captain Copland took charge of the vessel. On this occasion, while the ship was swinging, its stern came into contact with a dredge mooring. The effect of this contact on the vessel’s steering and speed was the subject of examination by certain counsel. Evidence from two members of the crew, the masters of the tugs Terawhiti and Toia, the owners, two signalmen, the harbourmaster and deputy-harbourmaster remains to be heard.

Mr. E. Page, S.M., was president of the court. With him as nautical assessors were Captains L. C. H. 'Worrall and E. Cartner, and as engineering assessor Mr. F. W. Granger. Mr. <T. Prendeville represented the Marine Department; Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie appeared for Captain Copland, of the Progress; Mr. G. G. Watson for the owners, Hohn and Co.; Mr. H. J. V. .Tames and Mr. S. J. Castle for the Wellington Harbour Board; Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for the master of the tug Toia: Mr. O. C. Mazengarb for the Marine Engineers’. Institute and the widow of the chief engineer, Mr. T. M. Simpson. Mr. E. P. Hay was instructed by the Seamen’s Union to appear for the seamen and firemen of the Progress and in the interests of the deceased and injured seamen. Mr. F. P. Walsh, general president, of the union, also appeared.

Captain Wildman’s Evidence.

Captain William Arthur Wildman, jun., muster of the Arahura, said that when his ship left the Heads there was a very slight swell, and later, when alongside the Progress, a moderate swell. Her position was three miles off Sinclair Head and three miles off Karori Bock. Witness asked if they required the Arahura to stand hy, but the reply was: “No, thank you.” He told the Progress that he would wireless her message for a tug immediately. The message, addressed to Captain Holm, was sent at 9 p.m., and let him know, of the Progress’s disablement and that she required a tug. They morsed to the Progress: “We have wirelessed. Can we do anything more for you?” The reply was again: “No, thunk you.” Visibility was good, there was a moderate swell, and the wind was inclined to increase a little, said witness. When he left the Progress at, 9.5 p.m, he steamed slowly toward Karori —slowly because he was expecting to get back some message from Captain Holm. At 9.45, having received no message, he resumed full speed. The wind was increasing all the time, but witness did not think it would get up to a gale. Mr. Prendeville: Had you any doubts as to the safety of the Progress when you left her? —“No, knowing that the tug was coming.out.” Several wireless messages passed between the Arahura and the Tinakori radio station, and the ship’s operator was asked to stay on watch. Finally he told the land station that the Progress did not want them, and they were proceeding.

Why He Feared Danger.

No Danger .Anticipated,

•Mr. Kirkcaldie: I take it that in view of the conditions of wind, weather and sea yon had no anticipation of danger to the Progress?—“None whatever.”

It was your assumption that the tug would be coming?—“Yes. that is so.” Mr. Watson: At the time you left the Progress you had no reason to anticipate that the wind would freshen to gale force?—“No.”

Mr. Mazengadb: You apparently thought it might have been desirable to render assistance?—“lt might have been desirable to stand by,” For what reasbn?—“We like to give assistance if we possibly can.” Of what nature?—“Well, if the tug did not come out we could have taken him in.”

And it would have been the part of prudence to take him in if the tug wasn’t coming out until the early hours of the morning?—“l wouldn’t say that.” If the tug had not been available you would have stood by?—“Well, I’d probably have taken him in tow.” Witness thought the tug would be out at about 11 o’clock.

available for purposes of salvage ! —“Yes.”

And could have taken her in tow without any difficulty?—“Yes." Witness had been expecting a message to come back from Captain Holm to say that he was sending the tug immediately. He hung on for a time, because it occurred to him that Captain Holm might be coming out on the tug himself. He did not think it necessary to send a further message asking whether the tug was coming or not. “The ship was in communication with Beacon Hill all the time,” said witness. Mr. Hay: Why then the necessity for you slowing down for half an hour?—“l Can please myself. I was expecting a communication from Captain Holm.” You made iio offer to the Progress to tow her in, I suppose?—“No, I did not.” He was expecting a fair wind that evening as he went out of the heads, but bad not consulted any weather forecasts. He did not anticipate bad weather.

Ship Considered Safe.

Mr. Hay : Had yon been in the Progress would you have considered your ship safe?—“l should have.” For what, reason? —“I would have relied on the tug.” You weren’t very ha--v leaving the Progress that night when you didn’t know for certain whether the tug was coming out? —“Well, you’re never happy leaving a vessel in distress.”

“Drag Began After Tug Left.” *

Mr. Walsh: As a practical seaman, how long do you think it would have taken that tug to arrive at the Progress? —“I really can't tell you.” How long would it have taken you In your ship? Mr. Prendeville: Well, you’ve got that already. He left the wharf at 7.30. and reached the Progress at 8.50. To Captain Cartner, witness said that if be had had to tow the ship he would have had a din. wire and a Ilin. Manila available. Kustaa Wilhelm Knnerva. second mate on the Progress, gave evidence along the lines of Captain Copland’s evidence with regard to the propeller mishap and subsequent events.

.Mr. Prendeville: You were in court all yesterday, and heard all Captain Copland’s evidence. Do you agree with all of it?—“Yes. that's about all I know myself.” When the Arahurn arrived witness had no reason to fear for the safety of the ship. The tug when it arrived had got to a distance of about three to six lengths away.

Shouting a Message.

“Was Hoping She Would.”

Do you think she could have got any closer?—“l was hoping she would.” The chief officer was right in the bow •f the ship when the line parted. Witness was on the foc’sle head. When the line broke the tug went away until daylight. when she steamed back on her way to Wellington, and came to a distance of about a quarter of a mile from the

Progress. The tug did not signal. When the ship was drifting on to the rocks there was too big a sea to launch the boats. The latter were in good order. When did you begin to get anxious? — “In the forenoon when she slewed round with her head to the sea. I knew her anchors wouldn’t bold much longer?’ Mr. Page: That was in the slack of the tide?—“I think so.”

Before the tug reached them witness pulled up the port anchor. He thought the tug was going to pick them up straight away. They had their heaving lines ready on the foc'sle head, with half a coil of 2Jin. Manila. The other half of the coil was aft. The crew, witness said, were waiting for what the tug would do. It came across their bow from the land side, pulled up to the wind, and someone shouted something across, but those on the Progress could not hear. After a. while they decided to float a line up on their starboard quarter—the tug was too far to heave a fine. The buoy with its water light, attached to the end of the line, went out broad abeam against the wind. They saw the tug pick up the buoy, and after a while throw it into the water again. There was good visibility, and the vessels could see each other plainly. The Progress had its floodlights going. When they saw the buoy thrown bad: witness thought they had bent something to it. Enough was hauled in to fasten it to a winch, and they found a heaving line attached to it. He certainly expected a thicker line than the heaving line. They-pulled it in by hand, and got the tug’s messenger line on the end. which they attached to their winch. The tug at this time was going slowly up. They never sighted the hawspr attached to* the tug’s messenger up to the time the messenger broke. At this time the tug was three, tug’s lengths away, and it went away after the line had parted. They floated out another messenger which they expected the tug to pick up, but they pulled it in again when the water light had. burned out. Before the anchors parted they were about a mile from the shore. He did not get anxious until long after the tug had gone—about 9 o’clock—when the vessel slewed round head on. There had been a steady strain on the cables, and the ship had been only rolling. Mr. W’atson: Throughout that whole night- did yon yourself agree with the course of action adopted by the master at that time?—“Yes.”

Did you at any time disapprove of it?— “No.”

Am I right in saying that when the ship burned head on you feared danger because she would be plunging and jerking on her cables?—“Yes. That was it.” When Beacon Hill started signalling to you did you have any difficulty in seeing him?—“Not the slightest.” When the tug came out to you was visibility good?—“Yes.” When she was three or four ship’s lengths off, could you see li'ow she was manoeuvring without any difficulty?— “Yes.”

Was there any sign of broken water due to rocks under the water anywhere close to you?—“No. You could see the rocks astern jutting out from Sinclair Head.”

When daylight came did you expect the tug to come back to you and renew operations?—“Yes, I did.” When the tug first fame out to you nt midnight, did you expect him to come close enough to heave a line? —“Yes, I certainly did.” Did you expect he would go under your stem to the land side of you?—“I couldn’t tell you.” From your own observation and marine experience, was there anything to prevent. the tug from going to leetfard of you?—“No.” Mr. Mazengarb: Did you hear any comments from the chief engineer about the propeller?—“l don’t remember.” Or about the tail-shaft?—“No.” Did you hoar any discussion about the tail-shaft during the two weeks prior to the loss of the vessel?—“Well, I heard they worn going to renew it.” - Did you hear that the time for using this tail-shaft had been temporarily extended?—“No.”

Mr. Kirkcaldie: Who is supposed to have said it?

Mr. Watson: I object to such a question, sir. 1 submit that a mere rumour should not have been put to the witness. Mr. Mazengarb (to witness): Did you know that the tail-shaft was all ready for fitting into the vessel?—“No.”

Or that a new one had been ordered?— “I couldn’t tell you that either.” If a ship wants a tug at sea, do you know the signal to put up?—“l forget now. I couldn't tell you exactly.” Did you put the signal up?—“No.” When the tug did come out toward you. did not Beacon Hill have' to give you instructions as to what signal to put up? -—“I didn't see any. The captain was doing the signalling.” Was any blue light shown on the ship that night?—“Yes.”

Well, when was it shown? —“I couldn't tell you.”

When did you first commence to drag? —“I think it was first at slack water, after the tug had left.” Mr. Treadwell (to witness, after some discussion on rope lengths) : I put it to you that it might well be that the tug was only one ship’s length ahead of yon when the rope parted?—“l thought it was more than that.”

Evidence will be given that at one time in the surge the fug was within 50 feet of you.—“ Oh. I don’t think so.” If she were she would be running a grave risk? —“Oh, I. should say . . .”

You had the starboard anchor out when she picked up your messenger?—“Yes, it was well ahead and there were 99 fathoms of cable on it.”

In the morning you did not put up the day distress signals?—“No. (hey were put up later on. They were not flown when the tug was there.”

The Toia came sufficiently close for those on board to think they might shout a message to you?—“Yes, but we couldn’t hear them.”

To Mr. Treadwell, resuming his examination in the afternoon, witness said that it was impossible to tell accurately how far they were from points on the shore. He agreed that Captain Copland had been correct in saying distances could be determined to within about half a mile.

“I Think She Could Have.”

Difference in Steering.

Wanganui Incident Described.

“I Cannot Understand It.”

Two or Three Miles Off.

Poor Oponion of Progress. Mr. Watson: In fact, you have a poor

To Mr. James witness said that prior to the message being given to the Opawa he could not tell for certain whether their signals were observable from Beacon HilL

To Mr. Hay he said there were no morse signals exchanged between the Toia and the Progress before they floated their line. One of the crew had said that he had seen something thrown overboard from the Toia. They expected the Toia to attempt to get a line to them, and it was only when she did not seem to be doing so that they floated the messenger across. This was done about half an hour after the tug arrived. Perhaps a quarter of an hour elapsed betw’een the time the tug picked up the line and the time the line parted. He had seen no signals from her during both those periods. After the line parted they started straight away to get the second buoy ready, and it was put oyer not long afterward. They sent no signal to the Toia to advise them of the second buoy, and the Toia stood away for three or four hours or more. At about 6.30 a.m., just after daylight, some barrels of beer on the deck started to shift about. The vessel was shipping seas. All hands were ordered on deek to make the cargo secure. Some time in the forenoon witness and a seaman put up distress signals.

Before and after the mishap at Wanganui the engines had been running the same revolutions, said witness to Mr. Walsh. He remembered the mate telling him that the shin was going on to the slip for inspection.

Mr. Walsh: In your opinion as a practical seaman, do you think there was any reason why the Toia should not have come back and picked up the second messenger you put out? —“I think she could have.”

In the early morning, witness thought, the sea was heavier than when the tug came out. .

To Mr. Treadwell witness said he had not heard anyone call out to the tug that both anchors were down. To Captain Worrall, witness said that if they had had a staysail it might have got them just past the point and into the bay they were making for. William Evans, able seaman, a member of the crew of the Progress, said that a few minutes after 9 o’clock on the evening of April 30 the wind freshened, and the skipper asked him to make up the sails. By the time he got on the job the wind was pretty fresh, and there was “a bit of a chop” in the sea. In witness’s opinion the tug was never nearer than two ship’s lengths at any time, He saw something at one stage going over the stern of the Toia.

Witness described the part he took in operations while the tug was in the vicinity. He thought they were a couple of miles from the land, which they could see. They put the boats, up on the poop just before the starboard anchor cable parted. Mr. Kirkcaldie wished to postpone this examination, but the magistrate suggested that he should proceed, saying that he looked upon members of the crew —in a sense —as Mr. Kirkcaldie’s witnesses. To Mr. Mazengarb, witness said that the crew understood the vessel was going into dry dock so as to have a look at the tail-shaft. He had heard the captain say that he was going to look at the tailshaft then. t Cause of Rope Snapping.

Mr. Hay: What, in your opinion, was the cause of the rope snapping?—“The tug steaming ahead.” To Mr. Page, witness said that they would have hauleel in a good deal more than six fathoms of the messenger from the Toia before, it parted. As far as witness knew the tug, as it was leaving, had sent a message by Morse light saying that it would be back at daylight.

To Mr. Hay, witness said that after the Wanganui occurrence there had been a lot of difference in the steering. He explained this, and said that he had often remarked to the mate that he couldn’t understand why the vessel was steering so badly. It was common knowledge ■among the crew. To Mr. Walsh, he said that he had expected the Toia to throw a line to them. He thought the crew were nervous from the, time the, Toia,-steamed away and left them.

Jlr. Walsh: Wore there any complaints among the crew at the master not accepting the repeated offer of a tow?—“There was a lot of discussion about it.”

With Mr. Watson, witness agreed that the crew were expecting the ship to go on the slip when the owners had “the slip and the cash.” (Laughter.) To Mr. Page, witness said that there had seemed plenty of room astern of the Progress for the Toia to manoeuvre. All hands had been surprised when the Toia steamed away after the first try. .In the morning the sea was heavier, but he supposed a line could have been floated between 'the ships.

John Soberg, who was leading seaman on the Progress for about five years, and came ashore on holidays in April, described the occurrence at Wanganui, before Captain Copland took charge. They had just left the wharf, had swung round, and were going full speed ahead when they suddenly pulled up. The engine stopped. Witness was told to steer more to the middle, and the vessel resumed her voyage. He had complained subsequently to the mate about the steering, but not. to the captain. Since the happening she had lost speed, and the chief engineer had complained to the master.

To Mr. Watson, witness said that the stern of the vessel had struck the dredge wire. It was the propeller or tailshaft that had come into contact with it, he thought. The engine had been “stopped standing’’ for 4 or 5 seconds and had then started off again. The vessel came on to Wellington and had made many trips since. He did not agree that the wire might have struck one of the two bilge keels which were relics of the ship’s old dredging days. After this incident witness considered the speed came down from 7i or 8 knots to 5 or 6 knots. His theory was that the wire might have got twisted round the tail-shaft close to the propeller, 'and taken some time to work off.

Mr. Page said a moment or two later that he thought the leading seaman's heories and deductions were really matters for the court.

Witness said that the chief engineer had spoken to the captain of the loss of speed. He had also told witness, and had added, for no particular reason: “I cannot understand it, but the tail-shaft has dropped another sixteenth of an inch.” To Captain Worrall. who asked how he knew the engine had stopped if lie w..s at the wheel all the time, witness replied that with the wheel hard over there was, a slackening as soon as the engine ceased moving. Fritz Degerholm, able seaman on the Progress at the time of the disaster, also gave evidence. He saw the Toia approaching some time after he had come on deck at midnight.

Rescue on the Rocks

ONE MAN WASHED OFF

Mr. Page: How far were you from the shore then, Degerholm?—“Two miles. Two or three miles.” What caused the messenger to break? —“The tug going ahead.” After the anchor cables broke, they would have had no chance of launching a boat, he said. Mr. Walsh (to witness); Wore you surprised when the Toia didn’t attempt to come back and pick up another messenger?—“Yes. we all were. Wo (bought she would have anol her try.” David Cope, who was fireman on the Progress, from January to early in April, said that the (ail shaft had been “pretty crook." About a fortnight before he left the ship he was told to chip ami scale the shaft, and had drawn the engineer’s attention to it. It was eaten by rust to a distance of about half an inch all round, and witness considered that if any great strain were put on it it would snap. Witness admitted to Mr. Watson that he could only chip nnd scale that part of the shaft in the engine-room. The shaft had been making water all the time he wns in the ship. lie had tightened the stern gland, and so bad the engineer, hut it had not seemed to make any difference.

opinion of the Progress?” Well, I always did from the day I joined her.” It’s a fact, isn’t it. that you were paid off on April 7—“ Yes.” You were discharged, and you’ve got a grievance?—“l’ve got no grievance.” You got a bad discharge, didn't you?— “Yes. I got a bad discharge.” Witness said that the engines had never been beating regularly when he was on the ship, and (hat. she had been making a certain amount of water. Felix Kuusik. able seaman on the Progress at the time of (he accident, said that when they were anchored they were two or three miles from shore. To Mr. Mazengarb witness said that it was surprising the chains had held so long. They had been in danger, of course, all the time. .Mr. Mazengarb: Was the sea where you were too rough for the Toia to venture nearer to you?—“No, T think she could have come closer to us.” After further evidence had been given the inquiry adjourned until 10 o’clock today.

INQUEST ON VICTIMS

How Fritz Degerholm. able seaman, was rescued, and Thomas Simpson, chief engineer, washed off the rocks mid drowned in the sight of those on the bench wns related by Constable W. S. Brown nt the inquest yesterday on the four victims of the wreck of the Progress. The names of those drowned were: Frank Lawton, mate; Thomas .Simpson, chief engineer; William Winton, seaman: and William John Finch, cook. Constable Brown stated that he arrived at the scene of the wreck about 1.30 p.m. Two of the crew. Simpson mid Degerholm. were still clinging to some rocks near the wrecked vessel. He was informed that three members of the crew were drowned, and had been removed to (he morgue in the Free Ambulance. Shortly after he arrived on the scene a bout manned by fishermen put out to (he assistance of the two men on the rocks. They succeeded in rescuing Degerholm. but Simpson was washed off (he rocks and out of (heir reach. He was then alive, and wearing a lifebelt. He drifted down the centre of the bay. Witness followed his' course along the beach.

After Simpson had drifted some two hundred yards his head disappeared. Witness was present nt about 3.30 p.m. when his body was washed ashore at the head of the bay. Evidence ns to identification was given by Captain S. Holm. Roy Hedley Hooper, Herbert D. Thompson, and Mrs. Milli-

mt Harding. The inquest wns adjourned until 9.30

a.m to-day. when the evidence of the master, second mate, and one of the seamen—given already at the main inotiir.v—will be formally deposed.