AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 2862, 20 January 1909, Page 13

AN IMPORTANT QUESTION.

INTEMPERATE MASTER MARINERS, AUCKLAND, January 13. _' At the marina inquiry to-day into the wreck of the scow Kia Ora the question ' was raised as to whether or not it should | be compulsory for owners of vessels difi- j charging masters for drunkenness to re- ] port to the authorities the reason for the I discharge. - Mr Walter J. Macklow, one of the owners of tne scow Which was wrecked, had given evidence that the master of the scow had previously been discharged by him from tti» command of a steamer on' account of drunkenness. Questioned by ' | Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M. (chairman of the I court), (Mr Macklow said that it was not the pr&ctioe of scow-owners to report ] the fact that certain masters and others j ware addicted to dxink. He> did. not , think it vas Reported when a master was [ discharged for drunkenness. He would I not do it. A seaman might ship with a drunken man and ri*>k his life. It would ' be a benefit to the community if the dis- j charges of maeters for drunkenness W6re leported to the proper authorities j Mr C. J. Tunics, who appeared for Messrs Macklow 8r05.).: You didn't cay you "would not" report it, but you "did not." - - «a^— v.*w-..^ "- •- Mr Macklow : No, I would not do so. I would think twice i .£boufc-.at v .. ... Mr Kettle : Do you say cow that you would do so? Mr Macklow : No, I would not. I would 3ooner let bim go and discharge him. Reporting a' man has very farreachin? effect?. Mr Kettle spoke of recommending the insertion into the act of a compukory clause. Mr Mays (appearing for the Marine Department) said that only one ca. c e of the kind under discussion, had been repoite<l to the maiine superintendent ; that was about 18 months ago. The nunn? s-uperinteudeut had at once repoited the matter to headquarteis, and the man's certificate was cancelled at once. In reply to the chairman of the court, Captain Fleming (the marine superintendent) expressed the opinion that it was the duty of an owner of a vessel to report cases of discharge for drunkenness. There was really no actual " discharge." A master entered into an agreement, and to dismiss him was simply to cancel the agreement. In delivering its finding as to the cause of the wreck, the court recommended that the owners of vessels should be required to report to the Collector of Customs any master or officer who is of intemperate habits or who is in a state of intoxication while on duty or who is deliberately dischaiged by his employers for drunkenness. i -r- No other organ of th« body if subjected to so many distinct disease? &0 th© i human gye, which ie afflicted b/ 48. J