THE Grey River Argus

Grey River Argus, Volume LVII, Issue 10520, 27 January 1903, Page 2

THE Grey River Argus

TUESDAY, JANUARY 27, 1003,

No one can say, or point to t c slightest) justification for saying, that the Court of Inquiry into the l<m of the Elingamite did not make the fullest possible investigation of the ciicum- | stances of that most deplorable and in- j excusable disaster. The facts of the j case as revea'ed by the ing dry show, as the Court found, that the initial mistake was in the conduct of the cap'ain in handling the vessel as he did in tho circumstance 3 . He had a very good idea of the position of the ship and ought to have been more alive to the risk he was running by changing his course in the first place, and next in running at such a speed in a dense fog. On the news of the disaster reaching us most of the newspapers at once hit the blot and laid the blame on the captain. Their comments hav<j been amply born out by the disclosures made in the course of the inquiry, which was a very Ion? and painstaking one. The punishment has certainly not erred on the scoe of severity, though perhaps no good purpose would have been served by making it more drastic, especialty considering how leuiently — too lienen ' ly, perhaps — such cruel mistakes have been dealt with in the history of marine diasters on our coasts in the past. But navi* gatora in these waters ought to profit by the lesson of the Elingamite aud try to regard it as the last instance et so light a punishment following so awful a disaster At any rate it is to be hoped that so gave a dereliction of duty in the ordinary responsibilities of the master of a passenger steamer being so leniently overlooked. But the captain was not alone to blame, though his error was tha means oi exposing others that were inherent in the general laxity in the management of the vessel and its appointments. But for the sad mishap these would not have been brought to light. It is to be feared that there was little chance for the vessel once she struck amongst the rocks. At the same time the evidence of the members of the engine-room lends celour to the insinuation of the Magistrate that there was something like a "conspiracy of misrepresentation" on the part of the engineers. We had something like the same experience hem over the stranding of the Mapourika: "All told the same story and advanced the same theory, and showed the same reluctance to speak candidly about the engines." The unanimity in each case was so wonderful as to arouse suspicion that there was something of the "made to order" about it. Be this as it may, we find tbat the evidence of the seamen showed a disposition to lay as much of the blitm.3 as possible to ineffective machinery, while the evidence of the engineroom did not minimise the responsibilities of the officers. To in quire further into the conflict of evidence on this part of the question may now be dismissed as going on a bootless errand. The engines may have been at fault, or they may not. Usually the chances of saving a vessel are very small once she rushes upon the rocks at the speed the Elingamite had on her when the disaster happened. Everyone knows how difficult it is to check the way of a vessel coming alongside a wharf, even when going dead slow, with every mm at his post and the engines unJer perfect control. The Elingamite's engines were out of order, j as they seem to have been in some slight respect, or we should not have heard of the necessity of usinga wedgi in some part of tke^machineryfor a purpose that involved a Jaug r. Evidently the Court was baflled by the evidence of theengineers and uuable to sheet home blatre in any direction or to any person. Of course if it could be shown that the engines were defective in any respect when she set out oa her voyage, there would be no difficulty in placing the respoHsibility either upon the shoulders of the owners or the chief engineer. This is the only point in the inquiry upon which a satisfactory light was not thrown; and now we need not hope for any more convincing light. But leaving all the real xjr probable causes of the disaster on one side, and treating them as if they wore as in-

editable hs the tides, there comes the lamentable loss of life mainly caused by the absence of suitable preparations to deJ with such an emergency as happened. Id was shown that there had been a want of proper boat dr.ll, and a neglect of the precautions supposed to be taken of having the boats provided, at least to s nne extent, with water and provisions. It is fair to assume, though it is by no means certain, that if the boat drills had been prop rly observed the boais would have been in a better condition to fiice the terrible emergency thab so suddenly befel the ship's company. We have seen these boat drills on occasions, but they did not impress as otherwise than as a mere perfunctory perform mcc that was not required and to be slummed over anyhow. If the disaster affords a lesson to the class who go down to the sea in sbips ib is that they should try always to be prepared for the unexpected, which, ifc has been pithily said, "always happens," by neglecting no pre* cautions. To do so ought to be as necessary and as much a part of a master's duty oo a voyage as carrying lights at sex The chances of a collision at sea may be a thousand to one ; bnt they happen for all that, even with the usual lights. How much more necessary, then, is id to be forearmed against such unfortunate emergencies as that of the ill-fated Elingamite, whose boats and rafen were cast loose on the wide ocean without food or water, and, worse than all, w:thout a directing mind to give .-ome unity of action after the loss of the vessel, and which might have been the means of saving many valuable lives sparing us some horrors, that have been alleged, though also denied, but at any rate were of such a nature that tlu least said about them the pleasauter for our feelings.