THE PAKEHA INQUIRY.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19404, 13 February 1925, Page 11

THE PAKEHA INQUIRY.

COMMENT BY MR BAIN. Interviewed by a representative of the Southland Times regarding the finding of the Nautical Court into the Pakeha incident the Chairman of the Bluff Harbour Board (Mr Andrew Bain) said that while he offered no criticism of the court’s decision, it was impossible for the board complacently to accept a finding which necessarily implied that it was unsafe for a vessel drawing 21 fc to enter and leave the harbour at low water. If the board’s recorded information as to the depth of water in the channel and on Maiaroa Rock was wrong, then the sooner the board realised the position the better and took steps to make the port safe beyond all question. It there v/as an obstruction in the channel (he himself was not convinced

(hat there was) the first thing to do was to find it, and the nevt thing to remove it. Mr Bain added that he had already taken steps for the sweeping of the area within which the casualty is alleged to have occurred, by a mans which would certainly be conclusive. If there turned out to be any obstruction in the channel which could have caused the damage to the Pakeha it would be removed and the correctness of the court’s finding would be verified. If, on the other hand, there was no obstruction, then an application would be made to the Minister of Marine for a re-hearing of (he investigation. Asked why the means now proposed to sweep the cnahnel had not been adopted before the inquiry, Mr Cain said that the method of sweeping followed by the harbour master

was at the time considered sufficient when coupled with the other evidence which was available and which wont to prove that the damage done to the Pakeha was not and could not have been sustained in the harbour, Questioned further as to the nature of the other evidence which was available at the inquiry, Mr Bain said it was inadvisable to discuss the evidence at this stage, hut he did not mind saying that to his way of thinking, apart altogether from sweeping operations, there were circumstances which provided strong grounds for concluding that the Pakeha did not touch in the harbour at all. The court had held, however, that even coupled with these circumstances the steps taken by the board to verify the depth of the water in the channel were not conclusive. Keeping in mind what a contrary finding would have meant to the master of the Pakeha, he (Mr Bain) was not disposed to quarrel with the court's decision. The written decision reemed to imply that fhe board submitted evidence in support of the suggestion that QIC damage was sustained before the vessel entered the harbour. This was not correct. The only evidence of such a possibility came from the master himself when, in cross-examination, he admitted that, contrary to the strict practice and in breach of regulations, the distance of the vessel from Waipapa Point on her trip from Port Chalmers to the Bluff on the date of the casualty was not recorded in the log-book.