DUNEDIN FERRY SERVICE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2928, 27 April 1910, Page 38

DUNEDIN FERRY SERVICE.

UNCONTROLLABLE CROWDS. DANGERS OF EMBARKATION. HARBOUR BOARD BLAMED. Before Ma- J. R. Bartholomew, S.M ; , at the City Police Court on Monday, Robert Scollay, master of the ferry steamer Waikana, was charged with receiving on board his vessel more passengers than were permitted by law. Mr Hanlon appeared for the defendant, who pleaded " Not ■guilty." Mr Sibbald (Collector of Customs) appeared to prosecute for the Marine Department. He said that on March 28 (EasteT Monday) the Waikana brought up a very large number of ipassengers, who were counted by five officers, of the department. It was to be presumed that the number o* passengers allowed was all that it was considered the vessel could carry with comfort and safety. Also as there were about 200 peonle in excess of the stipulated number (785), and only sufficient life buoys were provided for the passengers allowed to be carried, 200 people, who knew nothing of boats, would ha%-e to go without lifebelts in the event of accident. The public must he There were "innocent" people who, realising nothing of the danger of harbour navigation, trusted themselves to the captain and his men. In the event of a panic this element might rush together to one side or the other, .and - many go overboard in the consequent heel. Worse still, the steamer might capsize. The penalty for the offence with which the defendant was charged was substantial. A fine of £2O could be imposed, with a further penalty of 5s for every passenger carried over and above the licensed number. John Scott, tide surveyor, stated that on Easter Monday he stood at the junction of the Cross and Rattray street wharves, and counted 821 passengers disembark from the Waikana. Evidence to a similar <?ffect was given by Bruce Anderson, Charles Townsend, and Peter Doull. All the witnesses complained that there were no proper facilities for counting. Mr Hanlon said that this was a case in which the captain was a nominal defendant, though not so in the eyes of the public. The company was particularly desirous that the law should be strictly observed and anxious that no one at any time could say that the company had tried to overcrowd the boat. There were absolutely no facilities given by the Harbour Board for- boats of this class. Last summer 100,000 people were carried down the harbour, and nothing had been done for their convenience or safety by the Harbour Board. By a very small expenditure, by placing a turnstile, not one passenger more than the proper complement could get on board. At present passengers could, and did, scramble on board at all parts of the vessel. The captain did not dare move off, or these people would be precipitated ink) the water. The' officials of the boat did their very best to prevent -overcrowding. On the return journey the case was even more hopeless. Down the harbour women and children were thrust to the very edge of the wharf by the crush of the. crowd, and numbers had either to climb over the rail on beard the boat or else go overboard. Somebody was to blame, and at some time there would be a shocking accident—the very thins the company wished not to occur. Overcrowding meant danger and discomfort, and an accident so caused would land the company into such monetary difficulty as would kill it. When 100,000 people travelled it was positively incumbent for a public body like the Harbour Board to provide proper facilities for embarking and landing and proper beacons and lights on various shoals. , That this was not done was monstrous. If a ship was rushed and the captain made every effort to prevent overcrowding he was not to blame. The intention of the Legislature was to prevent people from endangering the public for greed of gain. If the letter of the law was to be abided by, then when any body of people chose to rush a ship, which, however, did not even put to sea, her captain was subject to a heavy penalty. As to facts, there was no case to answer. No legal proof had been advanced to show that the vessel had carried more than her proper complement of passengers. The company, which was really the defendant in the case, after a conference with the Customs, waited upon the Harbour Board to see if anything could be done to provide facilities for embarking and disembarking. Something had been promised, but the promise had never been kept. If the company had the power 'vested in it to supply such facilities it would have taken the matter in hand. Even the beacon at the three legs was more often out than alight. At night the master of a ferry steamer had to prope his wav without a single light to guide him. This Mr Hanlon considered to be a menses to the safety of the nublic and a disgrace to the bodv which had control of such matters. Neither the com pan v nor the. master of the Waikana felt at all aggrieved a* these proceedings having bf>on taken. T.hev it only right the public should know that e>verv eflfort w?« made by the oomonnv and canta-n for ir« safety, while tv >e T-Tm-hour Board, which had contr"'. did n^Hncr. Robert Scollay. master of the Waikana, the defendant, and John Duff, the purser, gave evidence for the defence describing how the steamer was rushed at Portobsllo. Constable Weir .said he was on the Portobello wharf before the arrival o'; t-'he Waikana. He found it impossible lo keep the people from the edge, and before" the steamer came alongside they were jumping on board. The two pursers, deck hands, the captain, and himself were trying to stop the crush, but it was useless. Women were fainting and being carried on board. The captain orderd the gangway on board, saying he had a full load, but the people cont nued to pre;s up the .pianos, which, therefore, could not be moved. The Magistrate said he would withhold his decision till the next case had been heard. Francis Joseph Sullivan was then similarly charged in regard to his steamer, the Maheno John Scott, tide surveyor, stated that between 7 and 8 p.m. or Easter Monday the Maheno arrived and discharged 302 passengers. The vessel was licensed to carry only 250. Other evidence having been given. Mr Hanlon said. that Mr Sullivan was (1) not the owner of the vessel. (2) did not receive the passengers on board, and (3) was nob present at the time. The case aginst Mr Sullivan was dis-

missed without prejudice, personal costs (two guineas) being allowed defendant. With regard to the first case, the Magistrate pointed out that it was exceptional The allegd ottence was that the master had received on board his steamer more pas£~ngers than permitted by law 7 ; but it had been clearly shown in evidence that it was a practical impossibility (he would not say an absolute impossibility) for the master to prevent passengers coming- on board under the circumstances. Further, it must be bcrne in mind as to whether an individual became a passenger on a vessel till he had been received, and regarded as such by the master. What the magistrate had to deal with was the fact that there had been overcrowding to a. certain extent, but it had not been proved how many persons over and above the number permitted by law had been on board. Therefore, the amount of the penalty, which depended thereupon, could not be determined. In strict law it appeared that an offence had been committed. He was bound to admit that the strictures passed by defendant's counsel were only too well founded. The ferry passenger traffic had reached considerable dimensions, and it was necessary that it should be provided for. It was clearly impossible for masters of these steamers to direct the movements of such a large number of people, and there was no reason why the authorities responsible should not supply the deficiency. Under the circumstances he held that justice would be satisfied by the infliction of a nominal fine of £l, with, cost (7s). The magistrate,' said he hoped that the authorities would recognise their responsibilities in this matter.