THE ELGINSHIRE WRECK.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 9382, 23 March 1892, Page 3

THE ELGINSHIRE WRECK.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Allow me on behalf of Captain Millar and his counsel (Mr Hay} to call your attention to a mistake you.have unwittingly made in your leader of to-day. You state that Captain Millar stated in his examination-in-chief that he was only tiro miles offshore at 7 a.m., and subsequently in his cross-examination stated he was three miles off. This is incorrect. Captain Millar

never said he was only two miles off at 7 o'clock. As you italicize your error, I trust you will give full publicity to the correction, I notice also with some surprise that you repeat in your Summary for Europe the false report that a man from shore hailed the Elginshire when underweigh. You give the story with all details how a platelayer on shore was asked by those on board where the ship was, and that when told to go seaward the steamer ran on the Dolerite Reef. Mr Hay stated that there was not one word of truth in this statement, and the Crown admitted it by calling no evidence on the point. f This was on Friday last; and yet in your issue of to-day you do Captain Millar the very great injustice of sending the fable Home. I might also point out that the northeast course taken at 7 a.m. would have cleared the ship not only of all dangers in the vicinity, but also of the Ninety-Mile Beach further on. No doubt, as the court said, an easterly course would have been still safer; but the north-east course would have been perfectly safe had it not been for the unexpected, and then unknown north-westerly current, this acting on a ship going only from one to two knots an hour set her right ashore. Had she gone half-speed north-east there would have been no wreck. It was literally the extra caution in speed that caused the disaster. My connection with the case is closed, and my only excuse for making the above corrections is that I feel very keenly for Captain Millar, whose troubles are sufficiently heavy without any exaggeration or errors of fact, and I feel sure that with your customary fairness you will be obliged to me for enabling you to do justice in this matter. I may add that I make the corrections above-noted from my notes of the evidence taken at the inquiry.—l am, &c, March. 22. John F. M. Eraser. [We quote the following words from the Timaru Herald's report of Captain Millar's evidence as our authority for the statement that Captain Millar said he was two miles from shore:—"At 7 o'clock the fog lifted a little, and I saw the coast. It seemed about two miles off." We have no wish to say one word that will add to the unfortunate position in which Captain Millar is placed, but cannot think otherwise than that he acted with singular want of judgment in not taking his vessel straight out to sea instead of groping his way in a dense fog along the coast without any real idea of his position, and we should have failed in our duty to the public had we not expressed our opinion. As to the story of the platelayer speaking to those on board the steamer, which was denied by Captain Millar's counsel, it should certainly not have appeared in our summary, and we must express our regret that it did so.—Ed. O. D. T.]

TO THE EDITOR. Sib, —Having read many letters re the cause of the s.s. Elginshire's mishap and the means that should be employed to float her and place her in Lyttelton dock, I thought I would ask leave through your valuable paper to bring before the notice of the parties interested and the public generally a few facts in reference to a design of an unsinkable ship invented by me some 16 years ago, which invention was laid before the New Zealand Government some 10 years since, also plans and model of same were sent Home to the Agent-general at the time when the direct mail service was initiated. Such a vessel as the s.s. Elginshire built on my principle—namely, with a longitudinal section running the whole length of the vessel and from the keel to upper deck, subdivided by transverse bulkheads and the engine deck say sft from the keel made watertight—could easily have floated off the next tide by lightening the vessel, supposing the rocks had pierced the bottom 3ft or 4-ft. Now, Sir, looking at these things in a sensible light, is it not a sin that such a valuable ship and cargo should be destroyed, when such a simple remedy is at hand, and which could be secured at an additional cost of construction of not more than 10 per cent., besides the ensured safety of passengers, ship, and cargo.—l am, &c, "William Isiusteh. Port Chalmers, March 21.