DELAYS TO SHIPPING.

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4467, 21 September 1901, Page 3

DELAYS TO SHIPPING.

THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT INQUIRY.

The inquiry into the charges preferred against the Wellington port Health Otficer was continued at the Courthouse yesterday, before Mr W. R. Haselden, S.M., the Commissioner appointed by tho Government. Mr Wilford stated that he had no further evidence in connection with the Monowai, and that when tho was first set up it was confined to that particular incident. If, however, new matter was to be introduced by Dr James, ho would ask permission to call rebutting evidence. Called on behalf of Dr James by Mr Brandon, James Grove, boatswain ofthe Ellen Ballanco, produced the log-book of that steamer, a® to the visit to the Monowai. He saw no sign of recall atter tho launch left the steamer. Mr Brandon asked permission to call the evidence of Grove in reference to obstruction being caused to the work of the Health Officer by the refusal of a master of a Homo-going vessel to put down a proper gangway. Tho Commissioner held, however, that no evidence Should be allowed outside the case of the Monowai. , ~ ... , Mr Brandon quoted authorities showing that a ship’s journey was not complete till she had been admitted to pratique. A passenger refusing to crane up for inspection was, he contended, imperilling the safety of the rest of the passengers, and was also interfering with the prosecution of the voyage. The duty of the captain was to bring the voyage to a safe conclusion, and until the voyage was accomplished the relationship between master and passenger existed. Mr Brandon maintained that the captain’s authority over a passenger did not cease when his vessel came within the three miles of shore. The authority of the master over the passenger was complete, and it was the duty of the master of the Monowai to insist upon the presence of Mr Chamberlain at the examination in question. He suggested that in sending the purser for Chamberlain the captain was committing an error of judgment, as the purser was not an officer or the ship* He suggested that the word-“permit” in the Health Act was an appropriate word to use in directing the person who was in supreme command. Mr Wilford pointed out that the Act of 1890 altered the law as far as the penalty for obstruction was concerned. Section 108 of the Public Health Act provided that any master or person m charge of a vessel who obstructed a health officer in the discharge of his duty was liable to a penalty not exceeding £IOO. This danse was not incorporated in the last Act. The Public Health Department, however, proposed the insertion this year of a clause in the Act to meet the objection. The present clause referring to the relation of the captain in the matter stated that for the purpose of pratique the captain or officer in command shall “permit the Health Officer to inspect any part of tho ship. This, he contended, only meant that tho captain shall not obstruct or prevent. In fact, a perfectly passive attitude would have met tho case, and it was shown that tho captain had more than passively allowed the inspection. He contended that the ship being in the harbour was practically in the position of a house, and was in the jurisdiction of the Health Department. In his opinion, when the medical officer found the passenger did not turn up he should have got an answer from the passenger’s own lips, especially where the nfan was in a bath, when he could be spoken to. He should not, as was suggested, “go off in a huff.” He thought, however, chat if a passenger absolutely refused to present .himself for examination, tho doctor would be entitled to leave the ship. Mr Brandon then called evidence for the defence.

. Dr James, Port Health Officer, stated that the salary ho received for the work of the Health Department was £260 a year. For this ho was required to inspect all ships from_ over-sea requiring his services, within the prescribed hours. > In cage of being otherwise engaged, he was expected to provide a substitute. • He had to make all the arrangements for the service8 > of the launch which was set aside for him._ It was his duty to convey all instructions he received from the Health Department to those interested, whioh necessitated a considerable amount of clerical work. His duties were of such'a character that since he had taken up the work ho had been compelled to give up certain branches of his private practice. The first thing that he observed on visiting the Monowai was that the_ visiting flag was not flying. On: reaching the deck the captain was standing near the gangway, and he drew the latter’s attention to the fact. , He had no reason for complaint, nor did he make any until the conclusion of his inspection, when he noticed by the passenger list that a man named Chamberlain had not come up for examination. After inquiring of the purser, he inquired of the captain whether Chamberlain, was ill. and unable.to attend. This he did because it was his invariable custom in the case of illness, delicacy, lor old age to go to a passenger’s cahin. He wag informed by the captain that the passenger was not ill, but that he had stated ho was not-coming UP for any doctor. His inspection finished at a quarter past eight, so that tho passenger had naif an hour in which to attend. He waited a quarter of an hour after his inspection of the other passengers was finished, and ho then carried out hig resolution,, which he before expressed, to leave the ship without granting pratique unless the passenger came up for inspection. It was not done in a “huff,” but was a calmly considered act, which he had on occasions threatened to carry out, owing t;o difficulties he had • experienced in other ships belonging to the same company. Before leaving the ship he asked the captain to use his authority and insist upon tho appearance of the passenger. He did his best to get the captain to induce the passenger to come up for inspection, but Captain McDonald said, finally, .that he had no power in the matter. He left the ship at half-past eight. He was sure of the time, because he looked at his watch. He also looked at his watch when he commenced the inspection and when he finished it. He always took the time of going off to a ship and commencing inspection. He completed the inspection at fifteen min. utes past eight. From the time he concluded the inspection of the crew and passengers to when ho left tho ship was fifteen minutes, and during that time he did what he could to persuade the captain to insist upon the passenger being brought up. He took the expression of the passenger, “ that he would not come up for any doctor,” as a defiance, and he left the ship after what he considered was a fair allowance of time to the passenger to present himself for inspection. Mr Brandon claimed that he should be allowed to put in a letter having reference to another officer of the company, to show reason for the Health Officer being strict in the way in which he carried out his duty on the occasion in question. * The CcSumissioner ruled that the letter was not admissible. Also, that, in the Waihora case, he would allow Dr

James to give his version of the statement made by a previous witness as to what the doctor had said to a fore-cabin steward on the Waihora, who came before him for inspection. Dr James, continuing his evidence, described his method ot inspection. To Mr Wilford: He had stated el* the conversation that took place between the captain and himself. Ho did not hoar the message brought by the purser to the captain, and neither captain nor anybody else said bo him that Chamberlain would be ud in a few minutes. Nothing was said to contra diet the previous statement made to him that “he would not come up for any doctor.” He realised that his leaving the ship meant inconvenience and monetary loss to the Union Steam Ship Cc,'a pany, but he felt, from previous exper. ence, that the question must be settled of whether or not the Health Officer was to be set at defiance. It was when he heard of the passenger’s statement that he made up his mind in regard to his action. He considered that threequarters of an hour was sufficient time to wait for 173 people. On the occasion in question there was no sickness of any kind. He knew that under 4 he Public Health Act he was entitled to go to any part of tho ship. He did not think it necessary for him to go to Chamberlain and get a refusal from the man himself. He believed the captain had power to bring the man up, and believed so until he heard the contrary from Mr Kennedy. He understood that the captain had absolute power over hi s passengers under the Shipping Act. As soon as he had communicated with Dr Mason and asked for his instruction he returned to the vessel; that was abou f eleven o’clock. He then, examined Chamberlain. He‘did not make any statement to. Captain McDonald about being wrong in any way. He did not remember seeing Mr Kennedy in Dr Mason’s office on the morning of tho incident.

To the Commissioner: The only re mark he made to Chamberlain when examining him was that he was sorry ho (Chamberlain) had thought fit to take the action be did that morning. Chamberlain replied in an impudent man ner: “Your duty is simply to inquire, into my health.”

/To Mr Wilford: He referred to Chamberlain only when he said that he was set at defiance.

To Mr Brandon: He certainly did not make use of. the language complained of in reference to the fore-cabin steward of the Waihora. Did not think he said anything to the man. In answer to the Commissioner, Mr Kennedy, manager of the Union Steam Ship Company, made a short statement of the result of the delay to the Monowai. 1 On the occasion in question, assuming that Dr James had. got through his examination by a quarter past eight, the' vessel would have been berthed by nine o’clock, whereas it was 11.15 a.m. before she was moored. The consequence was that the time of her-depar-ture, had-to be postponed, the work of the ship had to be .carried on'at overtime hours, 1 necessitating overtime pay* ments to the Harbour Board and Customs Department and an impost. of Is per ton payable to the Wellington Harbour Board on all cargo landed after the usual time. The same thing resulted at Lyttelton owing to the vessel’s late arrival there. Strong representations were made by the local fruit dealers, owing to the fruit being landed too late for tho local market. The passengers. by the . vessel were also very loud in their denunciations of the delay. The mails were; of course, late in being landed. •

To Mr Brandon : He recognised the inspection as necessary, and that if the Health Officer omitted ; the inspection of a passenger he was incurring a grave responsibility. In' the case of ' Chamberlain, if he had been in the doctor’s place, he would have exercised a little more patience, or would, have gone to the passenger himself.’ He did not think a quarter 'of an hour was long enough to wait, especially as he would have to ccane out again to the ship. He certainly thought the doctor would have been Justified in leaving the ship if Chamberlain had refused to come, up forinspection. There' was an instruction to officers of the company’s ships to, assist the health officials by every means; in their power. He thought Captain McDonald had done all be could reasonably have been expected to do. If he had been in the position of Captain McDonald he would not have gone personally to the passenger,, unless the passenger had, distinctly > refused ■to come un for inspection. Dr Mason gave it as his opinion that three-quarters of an hour was ample time in which to inspect’ 173 passengers. As to Dr James, there was ino officer of the Health Department in whom he had greater confidence, or who had more experience,. or possessed greater skill in the examination of passengers. . , ’ Counsel addressed the Court on the evidence,' and (the Commission therewith closed, the Commissioner thanking the counsel for their assistance.