THE ELINGAMITE INQUIRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2549, 21 January 1903, Page 24

THE ELINGAMITE INQUIRY.

THE NAUTICAL INQUIRY. AUCKLAND, January 12. When the magisterial inquiry into the wreck of the Elingamite wag resumed this morning the addresses of counsel were commenced. Mr Tole, appearing for the Collector of Customs, indicated the points he intended to bring out. He submitted that the disaster was due to careless navigation by Captain Atwood up to the time of the wreck, and that si.eh carelessness might be reflected on the officers. No proper lookout was kept. The log was defective, and the reckoning was therefore inaccurate. Thero was neglect to take soundings, and there were not proper precautions taken when the circumstaneps of the position of the steamer were f on.-idered. The speed of the steamer should have- been reduced, and the should ha\e been stopped till 1" position was aPcertainable. Secondly, theappliances for life-saving were insufficient, and there was al=o a disregard of the regulations — the boats being inefficient]}' managed, and the officers and crew not being ready in an emergency. Thirdly, the responsibility also rested with the engineroom. The question was whether it was on the chief or on all the engineers. There was not prompt obedience to the order. On a review of the circumstances there was no reason why tho ship should not have gone astern.

Counsel appearing for the captain and engineers expressed his dissatisfaction at the Crown Prosecutor not traversing the evidence and indicating the portions which he had decided implicated individual officers. The application of Mr Cotter (who appeared for the engineers) for the dismissal of Mr Scott (the third engineer) from the proceedings on the ground that there was no evidence against him was declined by the bench, tho magistrate stating that judgment would be givpn - i whole, when the interest of every offiocr would be considered. In tho afternoon, Mr Campbell, in concluding his address, extolled the courageous conduct of Captain Atwood, and -said th* review of evidence showed no grounds for assuming there had been any negligent or wrongful act on the part of tho captain, whose conduct was, on the contrary, deserving the highest commendation.

ilr Martin, in his address, submitted that the first and second officers did their duty right through. They were not on duty at the time of the wreck, but came on deck and assisted- with the boats. It had not been shown that the absence of compasses in the boats contributed to the loss of life-.

Mr Haseiden said if the boats had had compasses they could have shaped a couive for land, and No. 4 boat would in all probability have been saved. Mr Martin said no one seemed to know

where they were, or in what direction the land lay. The court adjourned till next day. January 13. ' In hi« speech Mr Cotter, who appeared on belnlf of the engineer at the Elingamite inquiry this morning, devoted himself to supporting the evidence given by those in the engine room 'fliat the failing of the propeller to reverse was due to its being jammed, probably by striking some obstruction outside the ship before the order ooukl be carried into effect. In any case-, the subordinate engineers could not be held responsible when acting under the personal direction of the chief. ' Mr Tole, for the Collector of Customs, said that the evidence tliut there Mas mo wedge by which to prevent the engines reversing was conclusive, as it was shown they would not stop if the wedge existed. All the evidence agreed that they were stopped within a few seconds of the order, though they failed to reverse. Mr Tole gave an address of three hours, iVi the course of which he said regulations should be made and observed as to drill and the manipulation of boats. He hoped the result of the inquiry would be the framing of regulations. Mr Haselden, S.M., here remarked that, however strongly the court might feel on the matter, he did not think they would make any such recommendations. This was rather a matter for the Special Commission, which could foupcl its conclusion upon disinterested evidence. No doubt, however, the evidence which had Been taken would form the basis of some action. Mr Tole contended there' had been imprudent, negligent, and unskilful navigation of the ve°.«el prior to the wreck. There had been a defective log, false reckoning, and too much theory as to the ship's position. There was also a want of preparedness on the part of those in the engine room. The court hopes to give its decision on Monday.