THE ELINGAMITE INQUIRY.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1612, 21 January 1903, Page 34

THE ELINGAMITE INQUIRY.

DECISION OF THE COURT OF INQUIRY. CAPTAIN ATWOOD’S CERTIFICATE SUSPENDED. CONDUCT OF THE OFFICERS AND ENGINEERS. $ AUCKLAND, January 19. The decision ivas given to-day by the Court of Inquiry (consisting of Mr W. R. Haselden, 3.M., and Captains Smith and Waddilove and Mr Twigden, assessors) into the loss of the steamer Elingamite, which was wrecked at Three Kings on 9th November last. Mr Haselden, S.M., in delivering judgment, after going very fully into the circumstances of the wreck, Avent on to say—The Court is of opinion that thero was no grounding astern until after the vessel struck forward. . No one on board outside the engine-room perceived any touching or bumping such as Avas deposed to by the engineers, Avhoso story Avas at- varianco until the knoAvn conditions existing at tho time. Tho engineers all told the same story, and advanced the same theoi*y, and showed the. same reluctance to speak candidly about the engines. It Avas clear that, owing to some defect in the engines, the reversing gear would not act, and the chance of thus saving the atcssel was consequently lost. Unsatisfactory as the testimony of the engineers was, and dangerous as tho condition of tho engines probably Avas, the Court could not hold the surviving engineers responsible for Avhat happened. They were at their posts, and obeyed orders. Although possibly the vessel could haA~o been extricated from danger had the engines been in perfect condition, ■the captain Avas none the less responsible for haAung so lost the ship. The Court found that Captain Atwood had been, guilty of grossly negligent naA 7igation in driving full speed through the fog till 10 a.m. on Sunday, when he must have knoivn that ho was near land, in neglecting to sound before and after 10, in altering his course without sufficient reason, in proceeding at four and a half knots or over'without sounding, in not carefully ascertaining his speed when going slow ahead, and in guessing his speed at noon on Saturday at tAvelve knots, Avlien everything pointed to a higher speed. The Court found that after the Avreck a grave error of judgment had been committed by® the master in allowing the No. 1 boat to leave the ship, and to leave with only half the complement she Avas able to carry, no sufficient excuse having been urged either by the master or Captain Reid for leaving the wreck.

Tho master and the first officer were to blame for not having all the boats properly equipped, the tackle in proper order, and the creAV efficiently exercised in boat drill. Those in the boats should have stood by the rafts as long as possible. The master and officers should have kept the boats and rafts together until a concerted plan of action was arrived at. Whilst the certificates of the first and second officers must be returned to them, continued the Magistrate, their conduct was not commendable, either m handling the boats at the time of the wreck, or in leaving the passengers adrift on the rafts. . The Court ordered Captain Atwood s certificate to bo suspended for and also ordered him to pay £SO toAA r ards the cost of the inquiry. The certificates of the other officers wero returned. Referring to the experiences of those on the large raft, the Court expressed the opinion that there was no foundation for any charge of unnatural conduct, though the survivors had .gone through as much as men could do and live.

The Court of Inquiry into the loss of the steamship Elingamite has in its decision tempered justice with mercy. It may at first blush appear that the sentence is severe, inasmuch as the suspension of Captain Atwood’s certificate for a year, along with a monetary payment of £SCL is a penalty that must press hardlv un-

on tlio man who has to bear it; but, oa tho other hand, AA'hen avc remember the magnitude of the disaster —the lives lost and tho terriblo sufferings endured and reflect that all Avas due to on® man’s errors of judgment, it cannot b® said that tlio punishment inflicted by tho Court errs on the side of scA r crity. Mr Haselden, in giving the decision of tho Court, broadly hinted that there Avas something like a conspiracy of misrepresentation on the part of tlio engineers, avlio “ all told tho same story and advanced tho same theory, and showed tho same reluctance to speak candidly about the engines.” It Avas, indeed, apparent to anyone avlio closeiy folloAved tho evidence that there Avas a disposition o-n the part of the navigating officers to blame tho engines, or those in charge of them, while, per contra, tlio engineers endeavoured to exonerate themselves, and Avere loth to admit that any defect in tho engines contributed to the Avreck. The President of the Court finds from the evidence that tho ship might, have been saved had tho engines boon “ in perfect condition,” but the fact that the engines Avere not in such condition lie holds to bo no extenuation. of the captain’s errors m driving at too great speed through a fog, in neglecting to take soundings, and in altering his course Avithout- suflL cient reason. Tho fact that an officer entrusted Avith tho care of a large passenger steamer should have omitted suen obvious precautions as the circumstances suggested will come as a scA’cre shock to the travelling public, aalio are accustomed to place the most implicit confidence in the captains of A T cssels. Again, the fact of the engines of the Elingamito being in such a condition as to bo unreliable in an emergency suggests tho query —Why Avas not tho chief engineer, or the company that owned too vessel, held responsible to seme extent for the deplorablo ate.dent ? it is plainly tho duty of the owners to see that the Amssel is well-found in every respect, and tho chief engineer, as their responsible officer, Avas bound to have reported the condition of too engines, if he did so report, and <o action Avas taken, ho is free from blame; but Avliat, in such case, shall bo said cf tho oivners? Messrs Huddart, Parker and Co. have doubtless suffered heavily by tho Avreck, and they liaAm acted generously by the shipwrecked poo-pls; but public policy seems to demand that in such circumstances as those surrounding tlio loss of the Elingamite, legal responsibility should rest upon tho owners of the vessel as aa'gll as upon the officers in charge. There Avill not, avc veuturo to think, bo a duo sense of security in the public mind, or reasonable guarantee against a recurrence cf shocking disasters, until more direct responsibility is tliroAvn upon owners. The findings of, the Court as to the Ai’ant of proper equipment for the boats and tho absence of efficient boat-drill for thg creAV fully bears out Avh-at wo suggested Avlien the calamity occurred, via., that there is an urgent necessity for greater attention being paid to these matters. It is reassuring to learn that in the opinion of the Court there is no foundation for any .charge of unnatural conduct on the part of the survivors. This effectually disposes of tho sensational stories about them sucking each, other’s blood and “tapping” Avhilo asleep those who objected to tho exchange of nutriment in that fashion. Tho lessons of the wreck are that some means must be found of enforcing efficiency in boat-drill, of compelling boats and rafts to be properly equipped for any emergency, and of seeing that the engines of steamers are kept in an effective condition, so that they may not fail to do what is required of them. Legislation may be necessary to seeur© these ends, and, if so, avc trust that Ministers and legislators will keep tho matter in mind, and promptly do all that is needed in that way.