THE ELINGAMITE DISASTER.

Otago Witness, Issue 2546, 31 December 1902, Page 14

THE ELINGAMITE DISASTER.

THE NAUTICAL INQUIRY. AUCKLAND, December 22. The purser of the Eiingamite gave further evidence to-day regarding certain statements made in Mr Wetherilt's evidence. He said the statement that witness personally objected to take the stewardess off the raft .was not true. The reason she was not taken off was that the boat was leaking and shipping water. Witness called out to the stewardess asking if she would come with them. Ec did not know whether she heard or not, but she seemed to shake her head. He did not refuse to take her. He did not hear Mr Wetherilt ask him to take a line, and did not know there was a line on tbe raft. He did not recollect Mr .Wetherilt asking that the raft should not b-3 left -to the mercy of the waves. At the time he thought they acted for the best, but now saw they had done wrong, but he thought at the time the Eift had more chance than the boat! as the boat might have capsized. December 23. The inquiry into the wreck of the s.s. Eiingamite was continued to-day. Peter Innes, motornaan, deposed that 11 men in the purser's boat were constantly baling. Copious seas were shipped. A man on the raft asked to be taken off on to the beat. The purser rcpl'cd that he would take the stewardess. She did not

seem anxious to leave the raft. If there had been any anxiety on her part she would have been transferred. He did not hear Mr Wetherilt speak about a rope or towing the raft. He told those on the rafts to follow them, but they could not go alongside, or they would have been ewamped. This witness gave new statements as regards the missing boat. He said he passed it on the afternoon. It seemed very full. Probably 40 were aboard. The purser spoke to the third mate, who «aid that ho intended to try to reach Cape Maria, and was very confident they would succeed. Witness understood that the purser asked the third, mate for provisions. The latter replied that the captain had the provisions. Witness denied having stated to Captain Reid that the third mate answered uncivilly when he was asked for provisions. Captain Matthew Thomas Clayton gave further evidence regarding the position of the wreck. j Andrew Rossie stated that he was in th© i forecastlo when the casualty took place. ; There seemed to be some difficulty in getting ! the boats out. Witness did not get into a ! boat because the women and children were \ not all aboard. If the boats on the port side could have been lowered safely theT© would have been room for everybody. He saw one of the boats on the port side capsize a.3 soon as launched. He and some others tried to take one of the port boats across to the starboard side, but there were nut ijaoush pi til-em, and .they, could, ja^fc

i manage it. They then went to a large raft which had been put over by some others, witness jumping overboard " and climbing aboard. Tlie raft on which witness was was waterlogged, the planks being some inches under water. The other raft took three persona from them. There was no- scrambling to see who should go ou to the other raft — the three men nearest going aboard. Later on they saw a boat They shouted, but got no reply, so one man held up a rope to signify that they wanted a tow, but without effect. The boat might have seen the raft. Towards evening they sighted the purser's boat and the other raft. Mr Wctherilt asked the rmrser to take the stewardess aboard. The purser called back, as well as witness could understand, that his boat was leaking, and that he was therefore unable to take her. The purser told the two raft 3to keep together ; that he would find land, and then come back to them. Evening was then closing in, and witness thought it would have been impossible for the boat to have found them. Continuing, the witneTs said:" "We asked the other raft, as it was apparently better, and was clear of water, to take the stewardess aboard. She said, ' Yes, take me aboard. I shall have a better chance on yours. This is under water.' The other raft apparently tried to get closer to us, but they -were evidently afraid to do 6o for fear of a collision, which might damage the cylinders. The distance between the two rafts was too great for the stewardess, and we were afraid to JeiJi&cjoj jgr fear sho would be drojHa*d»"-

Arthur Robinson gave similar evidence. - Mr Tole asked the bench if he should call evidence. "Mr Haselden: I think enough evidence has -been called by the marine authorities, unless there is any special evidence, the nature whereof should b«» stated. It is open to the captain and officers to call any evidence they desire, otherwise the inquiry should close as far as the evidence is concerned. The second engineer (Arkins) being recalled, denied absolutely that a wedge was usod in any part of the engines. The only hammering was when a plug was hammered into fcho overflow pipe. Witness put a spanner on the feedcopk, and struck that spanner with another in order to turn it. He did not use a hammer at all. The third engineer corroborated this. Mr Morrison (fourth engineer) said a hand hammer was used by him to drive a plug into the overflow pipe. No other use was made of a hammer. The inquiry was adjourned till January 12.