ANOTHER NEW ZEALAND WOOL FIRE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2734, 8 August 1906, Page 9

ANOTHER NEW ZEALAND WOOL FIRE.

CASE OF THE S.S. RIMUTAKA. NEEDLESS -DAMAGE BY WATER. (From Our Owh Cokrispondxnt.) LONDON, June 30. Yet another wool fire on board a New Zealand steamer. In this instance the New Zealand Shipping Company's Rimutaka • was the unlucky spssel that suffered. The fire broke out on board after, her arrival in the Victoria Docks. It seems to have been of small dimensions, and I am told that it would have been extinguished with ease and little \ damage by means of the steamer's own appliances, but a superintendent of police took it on himself to send for the_ Fire Briga-de, which came and took possession of the Rimutaka, pumping into her vast volumes of water, and thus doing an immensity of wanton mischief, in spite of being duly warned. Indeed, the steamer's own fire-extinguishing apparatus had to be employed to extinguish the fetupid and officious firemen — or, at least, to drive them out of the ship. But they did not go until they had done vast damage. The Times says: — "The offioers who were in charge of the New Zealand Steamship Company's Rimutaka at the Victoria decks on Saturday night give a remarkable account of their conflict with the Metropolitan Fire Brigade on that night, and of their efforts to prevent the brigade from pouring water into the holds of this steamer. These officers state that they discovered a small fire in the lower hold, j and that at 10 o'clock the steamer's gas fire-extinguishing apparatus was started. J Three quarters of an hour later the fire was practically extinguished, ( and the superintendent of police, who cam© on board, was told that no assistance was required. The euperintendent, however, sent /or the Fire Brigade, and it came at. 11.45 p.m. The officer in charge of the steamer e-ay» : ' I told the firemen there wae no need for them — that the Clayton machine was at work, and if they took the hatches off they would undo all that had been •'lone ; hut they took no notice of me, went down below, took off the hatches, and commenced playing water all over the lower hold with throe hos«s till 1 a.m., when tho gas was veiy strong, and they asked me to stop the machine. I replied that i would not, and as they were down there of their own i accord they would have to put up with it. j They continued down the hold until about j 2 a.m , playing water all round the hatch- I way.' The second engineer^ of the vessel also rejx>rt6 that he told the 'superintendent of police tbat the Fire Brigade was not wanted. An officer of the New Zealand Steamship I'ompany, who went down when he heard of the fire, states that he turnoil off the quay hydrant three times himself in owW to stop the water, but tbat it was as ofto.i turned on again. This gentlom-in adds: *Tho superintendent of the brigade as ted m ; to stop the Clayton machine, otherwise he would havo to bring his mt-n up out of the hold, when I told him that was just what I wanted him to do.'

" Underwriters are much interested in this case, since, as the result of the pouring in of water by the brigade, considerable damage was done to the Rimutaka's Cargo; it is contended that practically no damage would have been done had the officers of the steamer boon allowed to extinguish the fire in their own way, A somewhat similar collision between the officers of the Turakina and the dock authorities occurred at Wellington, New Zealand,'' but with a different result, since the officers eventually did their own fire extinguishing with very small damage to the cargo. Steamship owners fit modern gas extinguishing appliances in order to obviate the wasteful damage to cargo caused by water extipction, but, if water is intioduced against their wilT by fire brigades on shore, much of their efforts to save loss must go for nothing. The whole affair in the case of the Rimutaka, is probably a well-intentioned but unfortunate blunder. A collection of 5 per cent, on account of general average i<« being made from the underwriters of hull and cargo of the Rimutaka. «nd this represents about £15.000.."

" Another fire in New Zealand wool," .further says The Times, " has been the cause of extensive damage to the cargo of the New Zealand Steamship Company^ Rimutaka, while lying in the Victoria Docks. The case is especially annoying to underwriters, who cannot understand why the outbreak should have been extinguished with water when the vessel was fitted with the gas-extinguishing apparatus which "was- so successful in the Waimate fire. As it is, most of the damage to 3000 bales of wool and 900 bales of' flax is reported to have been caused by the water pumped into the vessel. The Rimutak*, of 7952 tons, built in 1900, is valued at £125,000. Little doubt is now felt as to the origin of these wool fires, and they ar£ generally attributed to the wet season in New Zealand and the high prices for wool — both factors which explain, if they do not excuse, the shipment of wool in a dangerously damp condition." I learn on tbo best authority that in consequence of the flooding by the fire brigade the whole- of the contents, 0f. .N0. 5,101 d were damaged ; for the most part it was wool, but it included a small quantity of flax and 25 bales of leather. • The underwriters are very much annoyed at • the action of the fire brigade, and at their request proceedings may be begun against those responsible. There is no doubt that the fire originated in the wool cargo, and in this respect I may mention that one of the shipping companies recently to suffer by fire is havingva bale of wool analysed to see if any chemical used in dressing the wool may prove to be responsible. The underwriters have agreed among themselves to give a preferential rate to cargo on ships carrying fire-extinguishing apparatus.