CAPTAIN FERRIES AND THE PILOT OF AUCKLAND.

Daily Southern Cross, Volume XXXII, Issue 5287, 22 September 1876, Page 3

CAPTAIN FERRIES AND THE PILOT OF AUCKLAND.

Tin: following correspondence has been bent to lift for publication : — K,M S S, ' Zealandia, ' At Kand.nu, Sept. 1, 1S76 Sii, — I have the honour to call your attention t<> a question of great importance to the ouncis and nn krvvnters of the lar»e steamships engaged m the S.in Fiancisco mail service, «md also to the commuulers of these \essels when calling at New Zealand polls 1 ai lived .it Auckland on the 13th ult., and, intending to leave at T) pin, deoired the attendance of the pilot, Mi. Bui 3 'lss at that hour, lie (the pilot) not being on board, and darkness coining on, I hove" up nay anchor at "i.\o and was pro ceeding to turn my steamer, which was swung head up h.ubour, when Mr. Burgess caineon boaid aud leinanded charge of the Tins J declined to do, on tbu ground tint it was expressly contiary to my utstiuotions, and intoi uied him that as soon as I got her turned or straitened up I should ask him to pilot her out of poit. He then said he would have nothing to do with the ship, unless lie had full charge. I replied as before : "That it v. as moie than 1 d;red do to »ive up charge of my ship," when he left the bridge Having turned my steamer, I sent an officer to Mr Burgess to say that now she was straightened up I would ask him to pilot her out of poit. His reply was that he would have nothing to do with her unless he had charge. About ten minutes after, while I was guiding the ship out of haibour inybtlf, the pilot came on the bridge and .ibked if 1 would put the helm as he Wished, and also caao or stop hi r as he wanted. 1 1 ephed, ' ' Certainly. " He tliei efore piloted the ship to the usual limits, every instiuetion given by him with Kgaid to the navigation of the ship being duly attended to On my letuin to Auckland, on the 2i)th nit , 1 was sei veil with a summons to answer the complaint of the pilot, who charged me with " unlawfully molesting him in the execution of his duty as pilot." My defence was that, ho far fiom molesting him, 1 was facilitating the ship's, depaituie fiom port, and only declined to give up full charge of my ship, foi the leaaou already stated, and pointed out that, however good a pilot Mr. Burgess might be, 1 eonsideied that I, as commandei, knew better than ho possibly could how to manoeuvre or handle my own ve-^el. I aho added that there was nothing in the harbour i emulations (a copy ot which "had been previously given me) that authorised a pilot to demand hill chaige of a ship To my sui prise the case was given against me, and 1 was lined £<"> with costs, a sum that would not admit ot an appeal. In conclusion 1 may be permitted to bay that the peremptory manner of the pilot m demanding charge ot my .,hip led me to the belief that it was done on purpose to laiso a vexed question and occasion annoyance, as no good purpose could be served by such a demand, but, on the contrary a berious accident might happen in a harbour of limited dimensions m turning a large vessel of 4(h> feet, and I aubmrt no one is so capable of doing it with satety aa the commander, who is thoroughly acquainted with the peculiarities of his vessel. May I, therefore, ask that you will be good enough to give such instructions as will prevent ths recurrence of a similar annoyauco, either to myself or any other commander of these large steamers at the port ot Auckland, for, J may add, that at no other port in New or Zealand or elsewhere in my twenty yeaia experience at sea (twelve of these in command) have any uuoh questions been laised. — 1 have the honour to be, &c, J. S. FniuuEs. P. S.— Happening to have a gentleman on board, as passenger, who was many ye.ua a barrister in Calcutta, and one ot the leading members of tho Bar there, 1 asked his opinion on the state of facts sent to you, and I beg to foi wai d a copy of his letter. .1. S. b . K.M.S.S 'ZealandiV At sea, 31st August, 1876. My dear Captain Femes,— Having at your request road the statement you have prepared to send to the Hon. the Chief Com-

I m^lon J ot ?« w . Zealand Customs at Wellington, *: ul being asked by you for my ■ pinion on the mau, er ' I , m « at uiihoaiUtingly _<ive it to the effect that the f e hM bce " • ni>citiuge of justice and ti..'* vou ac t«l -tnctly m the performance of dut>" m raui- ! 'ni( to K'>f »P charge of jour »hip tu uu y iih' The pilot is simply a portion of th.* ii w for the particular portion of the rovage. Ho is snbjoLt to the ornir of the rap tain in \fi\thniL' ionneotfd \V-jth the ship, wv» and except the way she ii to steer. The captain is the judge of what hu ship can do nidas to what heought t ■ do. Forexample, 11 turning the ship had t l >e pilot ordered her h> be turned one way, the captam knowing ill the time that she could not turn that w ay, and not interfered ; in case of loss he and his owners would be liable : the captain could not shelter himself under the plea of hiving given over charge to the pilot. The decision in the case of the ' San Giralorao,' decided in the Admiralty Court in England U>out 40 years ago, is in point. In that case the captrun against In* own better judgment allowed the pilot to take his »hip down the Thames in a fog when a collision took place. In a collision suit the owner« could net shelter themselves under the plea of having a licensed pilot on board. The Court held that it was the master's duty to have prevented the pilot getting under weigh. I foi^et where the case is reported, but the principle has been followed in numerous cases since Pdots and shipmasters are in the habit of taking a Tery mistaken notion of their respective duties. Thif has led to consequences disastrous to owners where loss iias occurred through the master abdicating his proper position, and I can conceive no case more likely to lead to disaster than that ot a long screw steamer where the master, who must know how she will turn in the be3t way, abdicate* Ins duty to a pilot who mayor may not hare ever handled a screw ship of great length. Assuming the facts as correctly stated, the pilot who brought the charge wm guilty of a dereliction of duty when he left the bridge for some ten minutes, and seemed to har* a returning sense of what his duty was when he came back and asked you whether yon would have the helm put and the vessel ■topped or eased, as he required, which you did up to the time of the pilot's leaving the ship. For my part, on the above fact*, I cannot see that either you committed any offence, or that the magistrate had auy jurisdiction. You may make any u*e of this letter you think fit. — I am, &c., A. T. T. PrrawsoH.