ABEL TASMAN INQUIRY

Greymouth Evening Star, 10 August 1936, Page 12

ABEL TASMAN INQUIRY

HARBOUR BOARD CRITICISED COUNSEL ALLEGES LAXITY ' When the Court of Inquiry, concerning the wreck of the s.s. Abel Tasman, resumed its sittings at Greymouth, today, addresses were delivered by the various counsel. The main featuie was the criticism directed at the Greymouth Harbour Board by Mr. N. A. Foden, representing the Minister oi .Marine, a policy of “laissez faire beintr alleged, and it being contended that, after the breakaway of the s.s. Omana, action should have been taken by the Board to prevent other ships breaking away from the wharf, as the Abel Tasman did on July 18. The Harbour Board was strongly defended by Mr. F. A. Kitchingham. who described the criticism as unworthy of the Marine Department. Mr H. Morgan, S.M., presided, with Captain J. Mawson and Captain F. W. Baron, both of Wellington, as nautical assessors. Mr. N. A. Foden, of Wel-

lington, represented the Minister of Marine and the Collector of Customs; Mr E K. Kirkcaldie, of Wellington, appeared for Captain W. D. Archibald, of the Abel Tasman, and the former owners of the vessel, the H. C. Sleigh Coasters Proprietary, Ltd., of Melbourne; and Mr. F. A. Kitchingham for the Greymouth Harbour Board. Captain H. A. Di'.lner acted as advisor, on behalf of the Marine Department. Mr Foden stated that the casualty, and the finding of the Court, were matters that would vitally concern the Greymouth Harbour Board. Accidents of this kind could not be allowed to accumulate, and one would have thought that some steps would have been taken after the Omana broke away, to prevent a recurrence. The duty upon the Harbour Board was to protect the property of the shipowners and the lives of those on board. He contended that the evidence disclosed ample room for improving the mooring system at the port. The Giey harbour had an unenviable reputation for casualties, and if the position

did not improve, the future of the harbour would be seriously affected. It was clear that the Abel Tasman was moored in accordance with the practice of the harbour, and to the satisfaction of the Harbourmaster. The evidence had brought forth various suggestions for improving the system of mooring. The conclusion must be reached, said counsel, that the system was defective, and he contended that remedial action should have been taken 12 or 18 months ago. The fact that the current was likely to develop rapidly in the river indicated the advisability of having the power of ships’ engines available immediately. The propeller could be kept just turning over, in readiness lor instant use. The evidence showed, submitted Mr. Foden, that the captain and crew could have done nothing more to save the ship, while the Harbour Board could apparently only look on and watch the efforts of those on board. It might be considered that, to some extent, the Board had contributed to the casualty, through its most responsible officer. It should have been apparent that there was a serious risk, as a result of the practice of using anchor chains as moorings. They were designed for a totally different purpose. The by-laws clearly invested the Harbourmaster with the control of the moorings. The practice of conferring with the ships’ captains did not seem satisfactory, as it made indefinite the question of responsibility. Steps should be taken to see that the cables used weer fit for their purpose, and to take into account the possibility of inherent defects. It was the duty of the Harbourmaster, submitted Mr. Foden, to be on the wharf whenever there was potential danger, no matter whether it was his time to be on duty or not. The harbour officials did not seem to have considered what might be described as “concealed dangers,” in regard to the river and the moorings. He criticised the failure of the Board to take any action, after the mishap to the Omana, and said that the system adopted by the Board appeared to have been one of “laissez-faire.” Constant thought should be given by officials, to the dangers that might arise, but there did not seem to have been any consideration given to avoiding a recurrence of the Omana incident. The admission that a faulty shackle was placed on the Omana cable, constituted evidence of laxity in the system. Improvements had been suggested in the mooring system, but he left that question to the Court. He felt that the evidence had been given with candour, which was worthy of the highest commendation.

BOARD DEFENDED Mr. Kitchingham said that it was very easy to be wise after the event. Mr. Foden’s attack on the Harbour Board was somewhat unworthy of the Marine Department. If a port had a defective system, the Department should draw to it the attention of the Board, and endeavour to reach a remedy. The Department was well aware of the dangers at Greymouth, but had not assisted the Board. Mr. Foden said it would be fairer to say that he had criticised the Board, instead of attacked it. His remarks had been made Quite impersonally. Mr. Kitchingham pointed out that only three vessels had broken away from the wharf in the seventy years of the port’s history. In the case of the Omana, the Marine Department did not make any suggestion to the Board, and was apparently satisfied. The evidence showed that the Omana breakaway was due to a crystallised shackle. Tn view of the fact that the mooring system had been so successful for such a lengthy period, he maintained that the criticism of the Board was not -warranted. There had been NO complaints from captains, and vessels had ridden out much greater floods than that on July 18. The latter was regarded as an ordinary run in the river. The fact that there were latent defects in cables was no reason for condemning the Board and the Harbourmaster. The latter was bound to accept the assumption that cables had been inspected. There was no evidence that captains had complained in the past 70 years, with regard to the practice of unshackling the anchors. It would be a high-handed practice, if the Harbourmaster did not confer with capahis as to the moorings of their ships. I’he Board wished to make the port is. safe as it reasonably .could bo made, under the somewhat unique conditions, and to avoid a recurrence of wrecks. The Board, however took the definite stand that the moorings •hotild be provided by the ships themselves, as in the past. The Board could not accept such a responsibility. It was most unreasonable to suggest that the Harbourmaster should be on

duty at all times when danger was anticipated. There was a thoroughlycompetent deputy on duty. So far as “concealed dangers” were concerned, it was impossible definitely to calculate them. It was said that the conditions at Greymouth were exceptional, but. they had been so for the past. .< years, and only three ships had broken away, while the mishap to the Omana was caused by a detective shackle. Neither the master ot the ship nor the Harbourmaster could be held responsible for such a delect. The Omana case could not be legaided as a warning to the Board in connection with the mooring system. So far as the propellers being used was concerned, the Court might make a recommendation.

Al AT LLOYD’S Mr Kirkcaldie said that the other counsel had completely exonerated the captain of the Abel Tasman. Th. latter had received courtesy and consideration from the harbour staff. With regard to the gear, the vess was purchased in 1933, and. before bein- brought out to Australia, she was subjected to a very severe examination by Lloyd’s, and was classed 100 Al. She was surveyed under the Australian Navigation Act, in 1J33, 1934 and 1935, and certificates were issued. He submitted that there was not the slightest ground for any suggestion that the jquipment vpqqp] Weis not satistactoi y • w-is no evidence before the Court to was strong power in the chain He submitted that, port starboard* chain, the captain was fully justified in coming to that his vessel was safely moored, captain’s method of mooring jas limited to some extent by the facil lies at the port. If captain we: d asked to make a suggestion ,he xvouid suggest that proper mooring springs should be made available, such were obtainable in many other A captain of a vessel coming to a port like Greymouth was dependent upon ocal knoweldge, and not only was h bound’ to conform to instructions, but was bound to rely upon the advice he got from the port authorities. In the present case, relying upon the advice ho received, the practice of the port, and the instructions, he moored Ins vessel, and also adopted the practice relating to the engines. Counsel submitted that the engines were ready toi an emergency. As to whether that

emergency had actually arisen was a matter for judgment and instruction, for it would not be right of the captain to set his engines going without consulting the Harbourmaster, m view of other ships lying below the Abel Tasman, and in view' of the facl that the starting of the engines would possibly create unsteadiness at the moorings, and consequent chafing oi the lines. Thor'S was also the possibility that, if the screw were turning logs might get into the aperture al the stern of the vessel in which the screw revolved, and it was sometimes necessary to stop the engines am start them again, when logs were going by. The fact that the engines o 1 the Abel Tasman were ready foi emergencies, and steam was nearlj blowing off, that the captain himsel! and his officers were actively engage/ in their duties in observing the ship’s moorings, and that the chief engineei was ready to turn on the steam at a moment’s notice, was sufficient preparation for the anticipated emergency, when, in the judgment of the officials and the captain, a state oi emergency had not arisen. There was not the delay in getting a response from the engines that might have been suggested. There could have been very little delay between the order for steam, and the response. In the ultimate consequences, it had nothing to do with the loss of the vessel. Mr Kirkcaldie pointed out that the broken link of the cable was lost, and therefore the question ot whether it was crystallised or not could not be decided. In conclusion.

counsel pointed out that inquiries were not for the purpose of preventing accidents, and censuring captains when an accident occurred, hut it had been laid down by an authority on wreck inquiries that the Courts could also adopt the much more pleasant function of extending praise, where praise was due. He contended that the manner in which Captain Archibald handled his ship after she broke away, and brought those on board safely through a fearful ordeal, was deserving of -the highest praise. In reply, Mr Foden assured Mr Kitchingham that no offence to any particular person was intended by his previous remarks, but in cases of collective administration, there was often a failure to look ahead. Mr Kitchingham’s defence of the Board seemed to amount to the statement that, now a second casualty had occurred, the Board would consider measures to prevent a repetition. He contended that such measures should have been taken previously. If lives had been lost in the Abel Tasman wreck, he did not think anyone would have absolved the Board from responsibility. He maintained it had been proved that the system of the Board was defective. Reference had been made to the fact that there had been an almost complete absence of breakaways similar to that of the Abel Tasman, but there was a fallacy in the argument, as it was only in the

past few years that larger vessels had been coming to the port. He thought it was acknowledged that Harbour Boards all over the world supplied mooring gear. The bogey of legal responsibility, if such gear were supplied, might scare the Greymouth Harbour Board, but it had not deterred other Boards. The Grey Board should not hesitate to measure up to the same standard of responsibility that had been willingly accepted by other Boards. Considering the peculiar conditions at the port of Greymouth, special legislation might perhaps be passed, to meet the position of the Board.

In adjourning the proceedings until 4 p.m., Mr Morgan said that the matter as it concerned the captain would at least be decided’, this afternoon. CAPTAIN EXONERATED. The Court, in its finding exonerated th? Captain. Whether there was dctuP.t on the part of the Harbour Board or its officials, is to be considered later. .