OFFICIAL REPORT

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 73, 27 March 1931, Page 10

OFFICIAL REPORT

MARINE DEPARTMENT'S

REPLY

The above letter was submitted to the Secretary for Marine (Mr. G. C. Godfrey), who replied as follows:— I am indebted to you for your invitation to reply to the letter of Messrs. G. B. Powlcs and J. B. Gavin. It had not been my intention to reply to Mr. Boilings' letter of the 20th March, despite his reference to "a conspiracy of silence." One can readily understand and sympathise with his desire to establish a justification for the adventure of the Windward, because, had the vessel sighted by the Enton been proved to be the Windward, a so near success would have appeared as justification. The publication of the letter of Messrs. Powles and Gavin, however, creates the necessity of a reply and of considering the two letters together. Mr. Boilings and his sou called on me on the 19th March and informed me that they had discovered that the master of the motor ship Enton had reported, on the day of her arrival here, the 16th January, that she had sighted on the 15th January, a white painted yawl-rigged yacht, about 30 or 40 feet long, in a position thirty or forty miles south of Cape Piilliscr. They also informed me that they had eliminated the possibility of the vessel being any -other yawl-rigged yacht, because they had accounted for all such Wellington yachts on Hie 15th January. This seems to have established in their minds that Hie vessel seen by the Eaton must necessarily have been the Windward. An assumption on such grounds ignores tho fact that there' arc yawl-rigged white painted yachts out of and at' other ports and, further, that; there are- a number of yawl-rigged fishing vessels in and about Wellington and Cook Straits generally. May I draw attention to what appears, on the face of it, to be an unusual situation as between the Enton and the vessel assumed to be the Windward. The1 statement in Mr. Boilings' letter is that the Enton, when passing Cape Palliser inward to Wellington on the 15th January, saw a yawl-rigged vessel 30 to 40 miics south of Palliser. The Enton would normally pass about five miles off Pallisor. Assuming the Enton's bridge to j|e 40 feet above water level, the horizon would be 7.2 miles distant. Assume also, that the topmast of the vessel sighted to be 20 feet above water level. That would add another 5.1 miles, or a total of 12.3 miles range of view to the small vessel's topmast under conditions of perfect atmospheric visibility (see table page 164, "Nautical Almanac," 1931). How then could the Enton closely observe the sails of a small yawl-rigged craft thirty or forty .miles south of Palliser'J Clearly there is something wrong with the statement attributed to the master of the Enton and alleged to have been made to the Department.. Further, as to the report alleged to have been made to the Marine Department by the master of the Enton on the 10th January, may I say that no such report was made on that dale or any other date. In such a matter, when a shipmaster has anything to report, he does so formally to tlie Superintendent of Mercantile' Marine. What actually did happen was that on the morning of the 21st January, six days after the occurrence, and just prior to the Enton's departure, the Department's Inspector of Seamen had occasion to go aboard. During conversation the master mentioned the case of the Windward to tho inspector, the former having just read the newspaper which contained a picture of the yacht. The master romarked, in a casual way and not as a formal report, that while rounding Capo Palliser on the 15th January, on his voyage from Auckland, lie had sighted a "small ernft" with canvas set and stood on a short distance to get a, clearer view of her. The small craft was making good headway, no signals were shown, rind as apparently all was well with her," he proceeded on his voyage to Wellington. The master of the Enton did not describe tlio vessel in any way other than as already stated. In view of the fact that the craft sighted by the Enton might, have been any, one of a score of such craft, no particular significance was attached to tho remarks of the Enton's master, nor

was there any occasion to do so. I refer to a newspaper report of the 22nd January, when advice was received that a boat answering to the description of the Windward had been sighted off Wairau bar. It is stated in that report that local yachtsmen considered that the Windward might not be reported for several days owing to the persistent north-westerly winds which had prevailed since she left Wellington. The distance from Chatham Islands to Cape Palliser, on a straight course, is 375 miles. Under wind and sea conditions which prevailed generally throughout the period after her departure from Chathams on the 6th January, it is quite impossible to suppose that a vessel of her type could have made the distance to Palliser by the loth, nine or ten days. When Mr. Rollings saw me on tho 19th March and told me of the alleged report of 16th January by tho master of the Enton, I had no knowledge whatever of the matter, for the simple reason, already explained, that no significance had been or could be attached to what the master of the Enton said to the Inspector of Seamen on the 21st, and therefore no report was made to me. However, I immediately set about finding out what craft it might have been. At first it appeared likely to have been the Pansy Heather, a whitepainted yawl-rigged fishing vessel, which had left Timaru, passed through Lyttelton, and was believed to be making for Nelson or Auckland. This vessel was located at Nelson with nobody about. Fishing vessels come and go without any particular notice being taken of them. It has not yet been possible to establish her definite dates. The investigation was continued and it has been definitely established that the Re Vittoria, an Island Bay whitepainted yawl-rigged fishing vessel, was in the locality of Palliser on the 15th, and this is probably what the Enton saw. This vessel has no wheel house, and might readily be taken for a yacht. Now as to the letter from. Messrs. Powles and Gavin. These persons again accept the assumption, which I think I have shown is not justifiable, that the vessel must have been the Windward, and on that assumption indulge in accusation. Taking the paragraphed portion of their letter seriatim, I have to comment as follows:— (1) That the' Windward was duly reported to have left Chathams on the 6th January. (2) The statement that the Windward was sighted off Palliser on the loth January is pure assumption, and I think proved to be incorrect. (3) The master of tho Enton did not report to the Marine Department on this matter on the 16th January. (4) There was not at, or about, the 16th January, much public anxiety about the Windward, although there was doubtless comment on the foolhardiness of the expedition. (o) Under instructions from the Minister of Marine, the Matai, then at Westport, was instructed, on 29th January, to proceed to Wellington immediately. The vessel, after taking on stores, left Wellington on the 30th January. The Tees, which left the Chathams on the 28th, was instructed to keep a sharp look-out. Whether the Master of the Matai knew of the Enton's report or not, I cannot say. He was not told of it by me because I had heard nothing of it. As to his being "instructed' by the Marine Department to take a course which must have been contrary to his own judgment," that is untrue. When it was decided to send the Matai in search, I instructed the Department's Nautical Adviser to collect from the Meteorological Department all weather information during the period of the Windward's return voyage and to have it available for the master of the Matai. This was studied by the master on his arrival in Wellington. The courses taken by him were entirely his own decision. That has always been the practice of the Department when the lighthouse tender has been engaged on such occasions, and the only possible one. He advised his noon and six o'clock positions by wireless each day, and these were published daily in the Press. What right or ability Messrs, Powles or Gavin have to criticise the courses taken by the master of the Matai in his search, I cannot say. (6) As to the reference of Messrs. Powles and Gavin to the Department's having "a nasty secret to keep" and to Mr. Boilings's "conspiracy of silence," I do not think, in view of what I have said, that any comment is called for. May I say, further, (hah the only communications I have had with or from Mr. Rollings .wore when (1) I advised him by 'phone Hint the Matin had been called to Wellington to undertake a search, (2) I advised him when tho ship would leave, (3) on the 6th March, when Mr. Rollings called and handed me a letter expressing, on lichalf of parents juitl members of the families of the crew, their appreciation and gratitude for the efforts of the Department. At no time during the Matai'a search did !tc communicate with me. I have referred to the "i'oolhardiness of the expedition." It may not be generally known, but it is fact, that prior to tho departure of the Windward, Mr. Boilings, one of the crew, and a friend, visited Captain AVilcox, Superintendent of Mercantile Marine, to obtain charts. Captain Wileox did 'his utmost to dissuade Mr. Rollings, and suggested .he went: anywhere but to the Chathams, but failed. He then told Mr. Rollings il: he would not listen to him, to see Captain Dowell, of tho Tees, which regularly trades io the Chathams. Captain Dowell also tried to dissuade,, but without success.— I am, etc., G. C. GODFREY, Secretary for Marine.