WRECK OF THE PROGRESS

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20882, 26 May 1931, Page 10

WRECK OF THE PROGRESS

COURT VISITS SCENE. SPECIAL TRIP BY TUG. RESUMPTION OF INQUIRY. ADDRESSES BY COUNSEL. [BY TELEGRAPH^— PttESS ASSOCIATION.] WELLINGTON', Monday. A special trip to the scene of the wreck of the steamer Progress on May 1 was made by the tug Toia at the week-end in connection with the marine inquiry concerning the wreck. On board the tug were Mr. E. Page, S.M., president of the Court, with the assessors, Captain L. G. M. Worrall, Captain E. Gartner and Mr. 1". W. Granger, Captain J. Spence, harbourmaster at Wellington, Captain Campbell, master of the Toia, Captain Copland, master of the Progress, and a number of counsel appearing at tho inquiry.

While the tug was on its way to Ohiro Bay (ho Court inspected various parts of the ship, and tho wire hawser which was run out on the day tho Progress was lost. The tug was taken under Captain Copland's direction to the placo where he considered his vessel lost her propeller. This was about six miles south-west of Pencarrow, with Karori rock abeam in tho distance. Tho Toia was then manoeuvred in turn by Captains Copland and Campbell to the position in which they considered the disabled vessel was lying when the tug reached it in the very early hours o£ May 1. '

. Use ol Line-Throwing Gun. Bearings were taken when the tug was in several important positions and the coastline was inspected from seaward. After this the tug was manoeuvred by Captain Campbell as near as possible to the spot where the Progress struck. While the boat was returning to Wellington a demonstration was given of the line-throwing gun with which tho tug is equipped. The gun is a small one and fits on a stand at tho rail on the upper deck. It fires an iron projectile, narrow and about a 'foot long, of considerable weight, to which is attached one end of a long thin line. The lino is coiled in a cylindrical container which fits over the barrel of the gun itself. When fired against a fresh northerly breeze on the way back from Sinclair Head it took out 36 fathoms of line. 228 feet, and the distance reached, allowing for the curved trajectory, was about 200 feet. An inspection of the rest of the ship and of the engineers' log was also made by the Court. Tho inquiry was resumed to-day. Captain Copland was recalled. Answering Captain Worrall, he said that when the Opawa went past conditions were almost perfect for towing. He could see no risk in the Opawa towing him. He had not thought of the cost at this stage. He only wanted to get to port as soon as possible. Questipns lor the Court. Mr. J. Prendeville, for tlie Marine Department, submitted a series of Questions for the Court to answer regarding the cause of the mishap. , Mr. O. C. Mazengarb said the reason the Marine Engineers' Institute had sought representation at the inquiry was on account of the rumour that tho accident in Cook Strait was due to the incident at Wanganui and the interests he represented felt that the stranding should, and could, have been avoided if proper steps had been taken. He felt that Captain Copland had erred in not accepting a tow or the offer of the Arahura to stand by until a tug came. Mr.' E. P. Hay, for relatives of the deceased seamen and firemen of the Progress. said it was with regret he had to submit on their behalf there was definite evidence that there had been some negligence on the part of Captain Copland. He contended there was a grave failure of duty on the part of the master of the Toia to carry out the instructions he received on going to sea. Mr. Walsh, for the Seamen's Union, said ho considered the time it took to get the Toia out to tho Progress was far in excess of what it should have been. It was the union's opinion that the Toia was undermanned and that her handling was unseamanlikc.

Captai Copland's Seamanship. Mr. E. K. Kirkcaldie, for Captain Copland, said but for his magnificent seamanship there would have been a greater tragedy. If Captain Copland had submitted to being salvaged lie would have been disgraced in the eyes of his own fraternity by surrendering to panic. Captain Copland had been entitled to act on tho assumption that there was no danger to life. Captain Copland's difficulties wero due to indecision or incapacity in other directions in getting assistance out to him.

Whether he should have accepted a tow or not was a question for discretion, continued counsel, and, as there was no apprehension of danger, masters of the Merchant Service Guild would view it with horror if the Court laid down the principle that in circumstances of this sort a master should have accepted a tow. Mr. G. G. C. Watson, for the owners of the Progress, the Holm Shipping Company, said ho would restrict himself entirely to matters which tho owners of tho ship. He invited the Court to remember that attacks made on Captain Copland were made, not to assist the inquiry, but with a view to subsequent litigation. Mr. Watson adopted entirely the submissions that Mr. Kirkcaldie had put to the Court on behalf of Captain Copland. The Holm Company considered that Captain Copland was a brave, capable and resourceful skipper, and that his actions were proper ones for him to have taken.

Cause of Breakdown Not Shown. With regard to tlie first question that had lieeii put to (he Court, Mr. Watson said he considered that the casualty was duo to a breakdown in the means of propulsion, with nothing to show the origin or cnuso of (ho breakdown. There was no evidence whatever that either the propeller or tailshaft actually came into contact- with the wire hawser at Wangunui. On the contrary, the evidence was uncontradicted that (he bilge keels were bv far (he lowest portion of the hull and Ihe evidence pointed to the fact that it was the bilge keels that came into contact with the wire rope, while (here was no evidence that the propeller or tailshaft touched (he wire.

Even if (hey had, (he probabilities were against (here being any resultant damage, to either propeller or shaft. They had definite evidence (hat (here was no damage to either shaft or propeller. With regard to (be. sixth question, Mr. Watson submitted (hat there was no evidence of any undue delay by officers of the Holm Shipping Company in having a tug .sent out. Captain Ness ordered steam to be. raised on n (ug within a few minutes of hearing of the vessel's disablement and at 9.45 p.m. he gave definite order for (he tug to proceed to sen. Captain Holm had not heard of the casualty until after the tug had been despatched and could not therefore be open to a charge of delay. Next morning, however, when he heard of tho Toia's non-success lie gave orders for (ho tug Terawhiti to proceed to (he aid of (lie Progress. As far as (he last question was concerned, Mr. Watson continued, ho did not for tho purpose of tho inquiry propose to analyse (ho actions of Captain Campbell. He submitted, however, (hero were three main propositions which had to be determined:—(l) Was the master of the lug justified or not in not going to leo-

ward when be first arrived afc the Progress ? (2) Did he or did lie not take all reasonable steps to establish effective communication between his boat and the Progress ? (3) Was he justified in abandoning operations at the time and under the circumstances in which he did abandon them ?

For the master of the tug Toia, Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell said ho thought it proper to point out to the Court that there was a considerable difference between the Nevv Zealand Act and the Imperial Maritime Act with respect to the course to be pursued by the master of a ship attempting to aid another vessel in distress. "I take it that the object of our Act is to prevent that very class of action which might be called heroic, but to which the words hazardous and dangerous more properly apply," said Mr. Treadwell. It was for the master of a ship to say what could bo done and counsel was satisfied the Court would be loath to say that the discretion which his client had been called upon from time to time to exercise had been improperly exercised. Tho Court had seen during the week that other master mariners veto disinclined to express an opinion about the actions of a fellow-master mariner, continued counsel. Mr. Walsh had charged (lie master of <lie tug with mishandling his ship and with not showing what he had been pleased to call sufficient courage. Bearing in mind (lie conditions under which Captain Campbell had reached the ship, Mr. Treadwell said he was inclined to uso language which he was sure the Court would not tolerate in replying to Mr. Walsh's charge. When Captain Campbell arrived at the Progress (he night was dark, with fleeting clouds. The weather and sea were tempestuous and the weight of evidence had been that the weather grew worse throughout tho night. " High Discretion Exercised."

Had Captain Campbell's vessel struck (ho rocks and his crew perished Mr. Treadwell apprehended that he would have had a far more difficult task than he had at the present inquiry for the captain would have been charged with putling his vessel on to the, rocks through acting hazardously, negligently and dangerously. He had exercised high discretion in refraining from putting his ship to a test which he did not belie,ve his ship was capable of performing. Mr. Treadwell submitted finally that the following facts had been established: (1) That the weather increased all the time from the tug's arrival; (2) that the water was breaking over the whole time; (3) that the boats were in the red sector; (4) that the rocks could be seen by night; (5) that it was impossible to judge distances by night; (6) that the loia had certain physical disabilities which made her an unsuitable boat for this particular kind of operation; and (7) that this difficulty was enhanced by the fact that she would have had lo take such a large sweep to go round to the leeward and dodge the anchors. "Captain Campbell showed the class of man he is in the box," said Mr. Treadwell. "He fenced at nothing and showed that whether it was in his favour or against him he was disposed to answer clearly and concisely. I submit that the Court would be loath lo censure the actions of a master mariner of good repute under circumstances of greatest danger and difficulty. Court to Inspect Coastline.

Mr. S. J. Castle, for the Harbour Board, mentioned the fact that the Court had given its opinion during the proceedings last week that there had been no undue delay in the despatch of the tug. It was accordingly not necessary for him tr> justify the actions of the Harbour Board or its employees. He submitted that all that could'have been done by officers of the board had been doneMr. Prendeville said lie did not consider it necessary to make, a closing address. He reminded the Court that if it desired to make any comment regarding the question relating to Captain Campbell it was quite at liberty (o do so without affecting the master's certificate. That could be done later if necessary under another regulation/ at an inquiry ordered by the Minister. Before the adjournment Mr. Pago said the Court would take time to consider the whole matter. They hoped to get a report out quite shortly. The Court will make an inspection of the coastline to-morrow and will hear statements of certain eye-witnesses as to the position the Progress occupied prior to going ashore.