North Otago Times. THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1886.

North Otago Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6057, 20 May 1886, Page 2

North Otago Times. THURSDAY, MAY 20, 1886.

It is well that people bhoulcl canva the judgment given at Wellington c Thursday last by Mr Stratford, KM chairman of the enquiry into the wre( of the steamer Taiuror So far as cs be ascertained from tboeo portions it which have been published, tl judgment appears to us to have bee inadequate to the occasion, At ar rate, it seems to us that one baa read very profoundly between the lin to discern come thing 3 Ea'urally ar rightly looked for in a judgment c such an event. It must be admitt( that Mr Stratford's observations c the evidence are admirable, so far s they go. The steamer, he says, "w; navigated safely up t ) 3.30 p.m., i which timo the N.W. wind difid awa and a light r Dutberly breeze sprang v bringing with it a S.E. swell, mist, ar heavy rain. . . . The cour ought then to have been altered to S. W., and at 5 p.m., as the wind had h creased f o a greai gale, with sea all increasing (on port bow), the lar bbing entirely obrcuud by mist, an the vc si probably mak ; *ig an unuau: amount of lee-way, owing to her beh on a veiy light draught of water, tt captain should have used the sau judgment he had on the previous occj sion when he allowed a quarter of point for a N.W. wind on the quart* (and consequent current), in bioad da] light and clear weather." That is a excellent summary of what the evidem showed concerning the weather, coi corning the vessel's nearness tj lan< and concerning the captain's failure 1 do what he should have done unrit the circumu'Uicer As a careful nay gator Captain Thomson Bhould ha\ materially altered the vessel's course and as Mr Stratford says, Captai Thomson's own admission " that he di not at any time look at the compass t see how the ship was steered, and ths he thought it sufficient to have give the course to the officer in charge ( the watch, evidenced a want of know ledge of h : j own duties and respons bilities." With evidence before i warranting such conclusions the Com could not help finding, finally, "that th captain never did anything whatever t prevent a full power steamer bein driven by wind and sea bodily to lee ward broadside on to a beach 100 mile away from the port he was bound to j or ordering the cancellation of Captai Thomson's certificate as a masfce mariner. If the judgment of the Court ha stopped tbore it mi<;ht have passei muster, though even then it would do have been adequate to tho occasion considering the lives that were loa " through (he captain's never haviuj done anything whatever to prevent hi steamer being driven bediiy bioadsidi on to a beach 100 miles away from thi port he was bound to." Many live were lost through the captain's unmiti gated remisaness in that respect, an< tha6 being tbe case more that the can cellation of his certificate was, perhaps needed to be equal to tbe occasion But when, after only cancelling his cer tificato, the Court goes on — just becausi Captain Thomson had been selfi possessod, courageous, and cousiderat< after his unqualified remissness hac ended in the wieck of his vessel — " t( recommend for the most favorable con. Bideration of his Excellency thatCaptair George Uiquharfc Thomson shall bt peimitted to hold a mate's certificate for the present, and that a mastei't certificate shall be re-issued to him at the end of two years, provided that he shall have been at sea as a mate continuously during the interim," — we are, we think, entitled to express unlimited surprise. A recommendation more inconsistent with the loss of life and property, and with the observations made by the Court itself, consequent upon Caotain Thomson's " want of knowledge of his dutiea and responsibilities," it would be difficult to imagine ; and it will bo extremely regrettable, for the sake of justice and the seemly moral sense of the country, if his JiJtcelleDoy, under some fojm of the law, feels bound to give effect to it. A.t its strongest the judgment is far from being sufficiently strong againtt master mariners lacking •' knowledge of their dutieß and responsibilities."

In ottc opinion all gucfo jttdgmetita, in addition to dealing adequately with the person immediately concerned, shoald emphasise the axiom that shipowners themselveß cannot be held guiltless when want of requisite knowledge on the part of those they employ ca captains leads to such direful disasters as the wreck of tbe Taiaroa. These being our views, we of course regard tha re- | commendation of the Coart in this case as a thing which is violently out of keeping with the facts and even with the Court's own comments upon the facts.