Mataura Ensign GORE: FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1894. THE WAIRARAPA DISASTER.

Mataura Ensign, Volume 17, Issue 17, 9 November 1894, Page 4

Mataura Ensign GORE : FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 1894. THE WAIRARAPA DISASTER.

Although the inquiry be still proceeding, material facts in the case have been placed before the public. From the first there waa little reason to imagine tbe ambiguous but convenient nautical verdict— the act of God —would apply. Now the assumption in an opposite direction is quite conclusive. Tho question narrows itself to one of reckless culpability as between the captain of the vessel and the proprietary Company. An exposition of affairs on the part of the captain has been rendered impossible, so that we can only arrive at an estimate of his culpability by careful consideration of colateral ciroumstances. After enjoying a monopoly of the New Zealand carrying trade ever since the trade became worth carrying, the proprietary Company were brought face to face with the nucleus of what threatened to be formidable opposition. Tbe object was to nip tbis in the bud, The opposition was virtually a repetition of what bad previously occurred, with this difference— tbat it was put forward more complete in its equipments. On the previous occasion the Company had been successful in snuffing the opposition out, although, as events show, it wa3 nat wiped out effectually. Tbey. were now, so to spe^k, put upon their meltle«*«a pupremt) effort to bo m&) &gd tbe point

carried at all hszard, or otherwise they must be conttnt to have these, l-.n^-continu- d monopolies broken down, and what they had, no doubt, come to regard as vested rightF, infringed. It was at that critical period in the prospects of the Company the accident arose. The circumstances being alto^eth^r exceptional, and the accioeut itself unaccountable, we are, perforce, driven to seek a solution of the one in the complexities of the otier. The theory is simply one of cause and effect, operau ig perhaps in their more distant relations, but nevertheless operating conjointly. First of all we have the faot admitted ou all bands that Captain Mcintosh was a good .seaman — cirefui, cautious, deliberate and otherwise alive to the grave responsibilities devolving upon him. That testimony does not come from his employers alone. It is amply verified in J public estimation. What is equally, if indeed it be not even more, couviuciug, is tbat although an " old New Zealand Bkipper " his previous record is singularly fiec norn mishap. Under these circumstances we reauily concede ail that is claimed for him in tbe Wf»y of skill and caution. He waß perfectly familiar with the coast upon wbich he made Biipwreck, and we readily assume this wan not the firßt; ocoasion by many upon which he was caught in the fog. It is therefore not reasonable to assume a man so gifted would suddenly, of his own free will and aocoid, divest himself of all moral responsibility, and, m defiance of orders to the contrary issued by his employeis, betray the reckless indifference to the consequences for which it is now sought to hold bim solely responsible. Such a theory is wholly untenable, and we have little doubt the public will reject it aa such. The only probable explanation is thac there was an txpresa, or, at all events, an implied, understanding thai every man should strain a point to defeat tbe threatened opposition, aad that in hia anxiety to fulfil that understanding Me Intosu strained the point too far. It is a seiious reeponsi bility for the Company to face, but seemingly the position is inevitable.