GREYCLIFFE INQUIRY

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 6, 9 January 1928, Page 9

GREYCLIFFE INQUIRY

COURT FINDS ADVERSELY OVERTAKING VESSEL (United Press Association.—Copyright.) SYDNEY, 7tli January. Before a crowded Court, Mr. Justice Campbell, presiding over the Federal Inquiry into the TahitiOreyclifto collision, gave judgment to the effect (as announced in "The Tost" on Saturday), that the Tahiti was, in relation to the Greycliffe, an overtaking vessel and as such was subject to the rules governing an overtaking vessel and that the cause of the collision was the failure of the Tahiti to observe that rule and keep out of the way of the Greycliffe. The Judge held that the captain of the Greycliffe could not be held responsible for the accident, as he considered his speed was in excess of that allowed oversea ships under the harbour regnlations and therefore ho could not be overtaken. The Judge further held that the Tahiti's speed exceeded that allowed by harbour regulations for overseas vessels. Continuing, Mr. Justice Campbell stated that an alternative view of the reason for the two vessels being 'placed in such positions that a collision was. inevitable was that it was the result of their normal progression upon their ordinary courses respectively, and that the situation must then have been potentially dangerous. The master of the Greycliffc was clearly totally ignorant of this and of the proximity of the Tahiti, but those in control of the Tahiti, having the Greycliffo in full view, should have been aware of it, but apparently were not, and momentary inattention to the Greyeliffe, .when, the ferry steamer Woolhara was passing to port, afforded just sufficient time to turn a potential danger into imminent deadly peril. This was recognised by tha pilot when he exclaimed, "Good God!'' and sounded two blasts on the whistle He was constrained to accept this view by force of the evidence as well as consideration of the probabilities. It seemed moro probable that the situation was allowed to develop dangerously in a momentary interval of distraction than that the tragedy was created by an insensate act of an apparently sane man, that was, by the master of the Greycliffe suddenly, without any conceivable motive, turning at right augles from his course and going in a direction in which he had jio desire to go. The evidence indicated the probability that the vessels wore slightly converging, sufficiently to place them in dangerous proximity, without any such sudden convergence as was attributed to the Greycliffe. SPEED-LIMIT EXCEEDED. Dealing with the speeds of the two vessels, Mr. Justice Campbell said that it was not on the evidence possible to arrive at a definite estimate of the speed of either vessel, but in his judgment there was no room for doubt that tlie speed of the Tahiti as she approached the point of collision was greatly in excess of the prescribed speed limit for outgoing deep-sea vessels in that portion of the harbour. It must have exceeded the- Greycliffc's speed, which was probably between nine and ten knots; that of the Tahiti being possibly about twelve. There was no evidence to show that the master of the Greycliffe had committed any positive breach of the rules of harbour navigation, nor was there any evidence to show that he was guilty of any act of omission or commission, amounting to a breach of general duty to exercise care in the management of his vessel, which causxil or contributed to the collision. Mr. Justice Campbell strcsscif tlie necessity for the authorities seeing that the- harbour regulations wove vigorously carried out. Ho added that after the collision everything was done that could have been done to save life. No one on board the Tahiti or elsewhere who was in a position to aid exhibited any lack of concern, of judgment, or effort, for the mitigation of the immediate consequences of the disaster.