THE TASMANIA WRECK.

Otago Witness, Issue 2273, 23 September 1897, Page 23

THE TASMANIA WRECK.

THE CAPTAIN AND THIRD OFFICER HELD RESPONSIBLE.

.Auckland, Septembsr 21. * On the Court of Nauticel Inquiry resuming thU roaming, Mr H. W. Brabant, 8.M., delivered the following written decision, which he has forwarded to the Marine department :—: —

It appears from the evidence that the Tasmania left Auckhnd foe Gisborne and southern ports on the 28th July, -with cargo and about 70 passengerß. The number of the crew was 42, of vrh'-rn 10 were eeatnen. Her draught wae between 16ft and 17ft forward and 19rt aft. She had been lately painted and cleaned. The ship's compasses are described as being gplen-did ones ; they varied only 2'Jf g at the most, and bai bet-n adjusted daily by talcing azimuths. The ship reached Gioborue roadstead at 4 p.m. on the 29th Jaly. The weather h*d been bad on the voyage down, but it waa clearing. Ib^ was still blowing hard with squalla of rain, but' clear between the equalis, and after dark the land cou^d be Keen three miles or more oil. It being impossible to communicate vrilh the laud that night, Captain M'Gee decided to proceed on his voyage to Napier, and kept the chip going slowly seawards until 9 p.m., when a couree was seb and the ship proceeded at full 6peed until about 10 55 o'clock, •when the struck on a rock, disabling the engines and causing her to take in water. Six boats were launched by the captain's orders mid the passengers embarked in tbem, cxc-jlleut order being kept. Afterwards 'the < fficerg and crew took to the bo*ta, which, how«ver, still remained alongside the ship At 1.15 a la. on the 30ch there were 12ft or 13ft of water in the engine room. About 130 the boats left the j ship. Sbe is believed to have sunk about 2 a.m. Her position when sfce struck is fixed beyond doubj by the evidence of Captein Adams, of the Diisgadee, who saw the teps of the masts above water on the Ist August, aud the position has since been verified by Captain Neale, of the Government steamer Hineaioa, and Mr William Armstrong, Govirament surveyor. The boats remained near the place where the ship sunk until daylight, when two i of them wers »af«ly navigated ti Giiborue and I two were safely b»ached on the shore, ar»d two upset in the endeavour to land, resulting in the drowuißg of, it is reported, 13 persons, though the exact number is not known Captain M'Geo and his navigating officers hare given evidence of the course and management ot the ship from the time sh« left Gisborne roadstead till ehe afcruck. The captain's ewidettoe is that at 5 20 p.m. the chip was inside the eeo»nd buoy from the shore at the roadstead ; that he then headed her S.B.E , and went flow — viz , two miles an hour — until 9 p.m. , that at 7.55 p.m. he took bearings, and found Young Nick'e Head bear west and Tuihine Poiut north, which would place the ship, he says, six miles from Gisborne, well orer to the enet side of Poverty Bay ; that at 9 p.m. he alteted the curae to *outh-by-east-h*lf-east by compass — he gave that direction to the third officer, who was in charge of the deck from 8 to 12 o'clock ; that the ship vt as then pat at full speed, which would b? 10 miles an hour ; that in 10 minutes, having looked at the chart, he altered the course to "S. by B -£ 8., nothiug to the southward " ; that he vcent on the bridge and gave the course to the third (fftoer, and instructed him to keep a good lock out and to call him at 11 o'clock. The captain than went below {o got reek. Mr Willcocks, the chiif officer, coiifirais the captain's statement as to the course up to 8 p.m., at which time he handed over the charge of tbe deck to the third officer. ° He states that he took bearings at 7.45, which showed Young Nick's Heal bearing W. and Gisborne light N.W. by N. •£ N. Mr M'Grath, the third officer, confirms the captain's statement as to tho course set, and states that the ship was steered that course up to five minutes before she struck ; that the wind and sea were right ahead ; tbat she was going a shade qyer 10 knots ; that about 10 53 p.m. he observed a bright lighfe on the starboard bow which disappeared in about ten seconds ; that the lookout man then Bounded two bells, which showed he had seen the light , tbat he (the third officer) did not see the light again, but immediately observed land on the starboard bow, and, thinking that tha land was stretching too far ahead, be ordered the ship to be hauled out two points ; that ho then called the captain, who came on ths bridge, gave the order " Starhoard," and immediately after " Hard a-sfcar-board," bat that before the ship had time to pay off she struck. Mr M'Grath also says that the ship was heading one mile and a-half clear of the cape when he hauled her out ; that if she had continued on the course as altered by him the ship would have passed the cape at a distance of two miles and a-half. Mr "VVhitefiold, the chief -engineer, states that the vessel's speed from 9 te 11 p.m. was about 10 knots. Mr Nicholson, the second officer, also gave evidence, but there .is nothing in it which I need refer to. The seamen who steered the ship and gave evidence say that they steered her on the course given by the captain, and the officers agree in saying that the ship must have fctruck on a rock to the south and east of where she now lies and to the N. and W. of Table Cape. The approximate situation of the supposed rock is marked "E." on Mr Armstrong's map, which accompanies the evidence. Ths captain thinks the ship drifted off the rock after striking ; the other officers that she remained on the cock until the boats loft her. or nearly until that

time. I » egret to have to skate thaj I caunot regard the story told by the oapbaiu and his navigating officers as being true as a 'whole. If it vrere true, the acciceni could not have happened. Their story and conclusions are also inconsistent with known proved facts, aad contradicted by evidence which, I think, is reliable. I'urthrr, some of thestatementsttiade are inconsistent wi'h each other. For instance, I ra-iy point out that if tho ship were at full specd — 10 knot* — from the poiut of departure (9 p.m ) until 10 55 p.m., efce would travel nearly 20 miles, which would carry her pa«t the captain's situation of the tupposed rock, which is only 15 or 15£ miles from the point of dfp-trture. Even j if she went nine knots she would reach the cape lat 11 p.m. Mr M'Grath states that a few minutes before the ship *tcook he was stseriog the course Be--; — viz., " S by E £ B , noihiug to the southward " ; th'»t on that course she would have passed one and a-half miles clear of thtt caps ; tbat after ha pulled her out two points she headed two and a-half miles clear of the cape ; and that the was then two and a-half miles from the laud. These, statements are quite irreconcilable with the ship having struck the supposed rock or anywhere else inside the cape, as a glance at the chart will show. Mr Tole referred to the case of Staples v. Joseph, heard before the Court of Appeal in 1887. In that case it was held that where in aa action for negligence in the management of a vessel whereby it is wrecked the evidence showed that if* the vessel were navigated as sta'ed on uncontradiefced evidence the acoideut could not have happened, the court would be justified in rejecting as i»cc edible such parts of the evidence which showed that there had been no negligence. Further, that if a ship on hey right coarse and with everything in order ie shortly afterwards found far out of her course i and wrecked, it muat be imputed, in absence of explanation, to negligent navigation of thesbip. To me the caee of the Testn&nia is exactly similar. The vessel has been wrecked, but no credible explanation is given by the master or the officers. My a?6O3<;ors advise me thab the course eet by Captain M'Gee was, from his alleged point ot departure, a perfectly safe one, and would, if steered, have carried tbe ship about three miles to the east of Table Cape. The c'aief officer gays in his evide'.ea that he cannot account for the ship being to far out of her course a? fche undoubtedly was. The only explanation suggested by the other officers is that there must have b*en an inset which carried her towards the laud, bufc they admit tbey did not then or before observe any inset. There is no evidence of any wind or weather or other cause which would cause such temporary inset as would t^ke the ship three miles out of her couree. Captain Neale gave *ridence that he had never experienced any such inset there. For these reasons lam forced to the conclusion that, supposing the point of departure to be correctly sta'ad, and that the course was set as stated, it -was nob correctly made or correctly steered. L \ter on I shtll remark on the question as to where the ship struck, but I will now return to tho alleged uncharted rock. The witnesses brought from Gisborne by the Marine department are C»pt«in Neale (of the Government steamer Hinemoa), Mr Armstrong (Government surveyor), Mr W. H. CUyton (of Gi<sborne, a passenger by the Tasmania), and Tarnebana Wa.itat* K'na (an aboriginal Native). 'This Native, who is an elderly man, states that he has lived at WAiwhara, near WaiDui, on the Mahia Ptjtin<!ula, all his life ; that he has fished on various fishing grounds near the supposed tituation of the rock, and has been wha'ing in the vicinity ; and that he ntver beard of such a rock, aud does not think it possible it cou'd exist without bis knowing it. Captaiu Neale in his evidence says he was in the Hinemoi when the marine survey was made by Mr Armstrong ; that a bar of iron was dragged by the vessel, and two circuits were made round the wreck, and numerous soundings taken ; that no trace of a rock was found ; and that he does not believe there is any about there. Mr Armstrong says that there is a level sandy bottom to the sea within a radius of a mile from the present position of the wreck ; that he found no evidence whatever of any rock within a distance from her of two miles to the east, two miles to the south, and a mile to the westward ; that there is practically a sandy bottom all over these boundaries, and a remarkable uniformity of depth. He says he heard it suggested at Gisborne that the ship might have struck at the fishing ground called Matftkana ; that he visited the spot, and has placed it on his plan, and that the depth of water there is 37 fathoms. I consider it to be proved, as far as such a negative question can be proved, that no such rock exists. I have before pointed out that, even if it did, it is very improbable that the ship could be there at 10.55 p m. if she were going 10 knots an hour, or even niue knots an hour, which I conclude she really was going. Ido not know that it is necessary for the purposes of this inquiry to fix where the ship did strike, but if the evidence of the captain and officers on the question is set aside all the rest of the evidence goes to show that she struck on the rocks at or about the N.E, point of Table Cape. Ib seems to me that the captain's orders when he came on deck— first " Starboard," then immediately •• Hard a-star-board'' — are Buggeative that he musb have thought the ship dangerously near the land, and not two and a-half or three mileß off; as stated. The only witness besides the officers who gave evidence as to the place of striking was Mr Clayton. This witness says that he lives at Gisborne and is well acquainted with the lay of the land. He was severely crossexamiced by Mr Campbell and contradicted by the chief oflfter as to the statements he made ahnnt tho doojjs of the social hall of the ship.

Ib was also argued that, beiug alaudsman, he would be unable to recognise land afc night. Of course, landsmen are as a rule less able to judge distances at sea than seamen, whose eyea are accustomed to the work. This particular wifcneES, however, has no interest himself in the question ; he speaks his opinion with confidence ; and I do not doubt he fully believes what he has said is true. I shall show that his statements are conSrmed by other facts. He says he was in the social hall of the Tasmania on the night she was wrecked, and went out from time to time to the rail of the ship ; thab from there he saw tho land, which was visible on each occasion ; that he recog- ! niscd the land as tho peninsula, and just before I she struck she was heading round the cape ; | that he heard two bells struck on the forecastle ; j that immediately afterwards he saw a flash light between the couraeof the steamer and the land, and that ib only lasted a second or two. The witness does not know what light this was ; but, as a fact, Portland light is a flash light, and we have evidence that the third officer saw a bright light, which disappeared in a few seconds on the starboard bow, immediately before two bells wereßlruck, and there is the evidence of Clayton that he saw a similar light in the same direction immediately after the bells. Mr Armstrong, in his evidence, says that the extreme end of the capo is within the line of the flashing light of Portland lighthouse. Tbe situation of the supposed rock is well inside tha line of the Hyhfc. I have already pointed out that the ship could not have been travelling 10 kuobs, because if '"she vrero she would by 10 55 have been tight past the cape ; but if ire suppose that owing to the wind and sea ehe was travelling only something over nine she would get to the point of Ihe cape about that time The Maori witness in his evidence says that on (he night of the wreck he was in a house at Wsiwhara facing the sea, and that ho saw the por(hole lights of a large steamer broadside on to tbe phore. He then thought she musb be Ihe Waihora anchored there. He has marked on the chart the place where he saw the steamer. The spot marked was nearly in a direct line between the cape and the place where the Tasmania now lias. If, then, the ship ran on the point of the cape at 10 55 p.m., considering tho direction of the miud and eea. and such an inset round the cape as the flood tides cause, it is quite likely, my assessors thinlr, that she might drift by 2 a.m. to the pace where she now lies. At.any rate, however, tbe ship to have t-truck at all mutt have been far inside the proper course, aud in the weather and under the circumst»nces described ib must be considered careless and negligent navigation on the part of the efficers to allow her to get so far iuside. Mr M'Grath, the third officer, is a young man who had lately joined the ship, and had never been accustomed to have charge of a watch on a large steamship, and he was not familiar with the voyage the vessel was starting on that evening. That he bad not made himself familiar with tho coast is ehown by the amwprs to the questions pub to him aa to tbe distance from Young Nick's Head to Table He said 28 miles, when it is really about 21. The captain knew the id' xperience of his officer, and when he left the deck in his charge he should have asked to be called not at 11 o'clock, the time when the ship if on her right course, and as he thought going 10 knots, would "have been going round the cape, but afc a much earlier hour, or in the alternative, he should have jierfectly pointed out; the dangers of the voyage. Mr M'Grath says the captsiu told him he would probably sight the land about 11— wo'ds which might be taken to mean not before 11, and mighb fi!l that officer with false securiby. As to Mr M'Grath, there can be no question that he was guilty of gross negligence. He did nob keep a good look-out as directed by the captain. If he had the accident could nob have happened, as between the fqualls the land could be seen a few miles off. 1 here was tooie evidence From thepasfeogera tbabtheboabs •were not properly equipped, bub seeing ib came from men who did nob appear to know much about boats I thought it neither definite nor strong enough to throw blame on to the officers for. Ib is to be regretted that there were' not more p&ssengcra before the court as witne3se3. This, however, waa impossible, owing to the inquiry b-ing held so far from tho ports to whn.li the passengers were proceeding. There was, unfortunately, much loss of life, caused by bhe upsetting of two of the boats in tryicg to effect a landing through the sucf, bub the evidence seems to show thab this was nob cauced by bhe boats bsing unsea worthy or badly equipped, but by injudicious management on the parfe of bhose in charge. One of the passeDger witnesses thought the ship's carpenter incapable of managing the boat he was in charge of, but I could nob pursue the question, as the carpenter had left for Melbourne before tha inquiry. The decision I have come to is that bhe Tasmania was wrecked by careless and negligenb navigation by Thomas M'Gee (master) and Perceval M'Gra*h (third officer), that the certificates of each be suspended for six mouths, and that the captain be ordered to pay the coat of the inquiry, but nob to exceed £100. My assessors concur in this decision.